Archeologly proves the Bible?

[pakeha]

...That's the same one I posted above, found with a couple of seconds googling (obviously, that's beyond DOC). The second link I gave is an independent report of the TV show you gave the transcript of, which has the quote of 'nonsense'. Again, found very quickly in google.

So, DOC, are you going to admit that a Catholic priest accepts that Luke made things up?

And just to continue the game, zooterkin, if you follow DOC's link to the sacred-destinations article, you' find a link which takes to
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-garden-tomb.htm
The commentaries about the "Golgotha" formation and the cave tomb are written by...

 

[pakeha]

However, scholars are generally agreed that the Garden Tomb is not the actual site of Jesus' burial. According to Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "there is no possibility that it is in fact the place where Christ was buried."

What do you reckon, zooterkin.

 

[Nonpareil]

You know something I've just noticed?

It's impossible for archeologly to prove the Bible true. There's no such thing as archeologly.

 

[Marduk]

oh, yes, stories like the flood and such, those are just descended from the originals. I was thinking the Exodus stories, the patriarchs, stuff like that.

the patriarchs ages were derived from the Mesopotamian kings list, specifically the kings of Kish, this was some time after the Sumerians who had compiled that part of the list had moved on. The Hebrews again were creating their own cosmology by redacting the myths and claims of more powerful civilisations, what they didn't realise is that the Sumerians didn't use base 10 when recording the reign of kings,
heres my research on that

Kiš
name of King/listed reign/reign in sexagesimal years/reign in base 10 years/approx date/nationality of king
Ĝušur 1200 1200 20 3592bce Su
Kullassina-bēl 960 960 16 3572bce Su
Nanĝišlišma 670 670 11 3556bce Su
En-tara-ana 420 420 7 3545bce Su
Babum 300 300 5 3538bce Su
Puannum 840 840 14 3533bce Su
Kalibum 960 960 16 3519bce Su
Kalūmum 900 900 15 3503bce Su
Zuqāqīp 900 900 15 3488bce Su
Atab 600 600 10 3473bce Su
Mašda 840 840 14 3463bce Su
Arwium 720 720 12 3449bce Su
Etana, the shepherd 1500 1500 25 3437bce Su
Bali 410 410 6 1/2 3412bce Su
En-me-nuna 660 660 11 3406bce Su
Melem-Kiš 900 900 15 3395bce Su
Barsal-nuna 1200 1200 20 3380bce Su
Zamug 140 140 2 1/3 3360bce Su
Tizqār 305 305 5 3357bce Su
Ilku 900 900 15 3352bce Su
Iltasadum 1200 1200 20 3327bce Su
En-me-barage-si 900 900 15 3307bce Su
Aga 625 625 10 1/2 3292bce Su

so for example you can see the name Barsal-nuna who reigned for 1200 years in the sumerian number system, whos reign in our base 10 was 20 years, with the sumerians counting 1 years base 10 as 60 in their system, so you have to divide the sumerian length by 60 (1200 divided by 60 = 20)

the Hebrews reading this when it was written using the same numerical symbols as were currently being used by the babylonians didn't know this, likewise up until fairly recently Sumerologists* didn't know this, but as you can see from the figures above, its quite easily proven.

What do you think a fledgling culture would claim for the ages of their long dead patriarchs, on encountering a list that said the kings of the most important culture they had ever known had lived for hundreds of years


* this gap in knowledge was responsible for some really crazy crapola, but isn't it always

 

[DOC]

They never affected our calenders {AD. and BC}.

Weakest argument for Jesus's divinity ever.

In your mind what's the strongest argument for the divinity of Jesus?

I am at a loss to answer; just as I suspect you could not provide an answer to the question "what's the strongest evidence for Shiva's divinity?" Feel free to prove my suspicions to be incorrect by giving an answer to that question.

Yes, but I never made the statement, "Weakest argument for Shiva's divinity ever". In order to make a statement like you did, you must believe there are stronger arguments for Jesus' divinity and subsequently a strongest of the bunch. If you can't answer that question about which is the strongest argument then you have no right to say which is the weakest.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, but I never made the statement, "Weakest argument for Shiva's divinity ever". In order to make a statement like you did, you must believe there are stronger arguments for Jesus' divinity and subsequently a strongest of the bunch. If you can't answer that question about which is the strongest argument then you have no right to say which is the weakest.

Yes, let's concentrate on a throwaway remark, and once more ignore the fact that one of your statements has been debunked...

Care to comment on the claim by Jerome Murphy O'Connor that Luke's report of the census was nonsense?

 

[Simon39759]

I guess, the strongest argument for Jesus' divinity would be, in my opinion, is alleged aptitude at performing miracle convincing enough for his apostles and the onlooking crowd.

But Uri Geller, to name just one, would have a similarly convincing aptitude, and we can be reasonably certain he was a fraud.
And, of course, in the case of Jesus, we only have deformed hearsays about these so-called miracles, even weaker than for Geller.

Hence, even the strongest evidence of Jesus' divinity still is excruciatingly weak. In my humblest of opinion.

 

[joobz]

I guess, the strongest argument for Jesus' divinity would be, in my opinion, is alleged aptitude at performing miracle convincing enough for his apostles and the onlooking crowd.

But Uri Geller, to name just one, would have a similarly convincing aptitude, and we can be reasonably certain he was a fraud.
And, of course, in the case of Jesus, we only have deformed hearsays about these so-called miracles, even weaker than for Geller.

Hence, even the strongest evidence of Jesus' divinity still is excruciatingly weak. In my humblest of opinion.

That's as fair an answer as one could get, DOC.

But, DOC, what you asked was a rather difficult question. After all, I think there's no real strong argument for any divinity, let along Jesus'.

 

[Akhenaten]

You know something I've just noticed?

It's impossible for archeologly to prove the Bible true. There's no such thing as archeologly.

Oh Darn! I'm going home then.


After this . . .

<respectful snip, o mighty god>

So for example you can see the name Barsal-nuna who reigned for 1200 years in the sumerian number system, whos reign in our base 10 was 20 years, with the sumerians counting 1 years base 10 as 60 in their system, so you have to divide the sumerian length by 60 (1200 divided by 60 = 20)

the Hebrews reading this when it was written using the same numerical symbols as were currently being used by the babylonians didn't know this, likewise up until fairly recently Sumerologists* didn't know this, but as you can see from the figures above, its quite easily proven.

What do you think a fledgling culture would claim for the ages of their long dead patriarchs, on encountering a list that said the kings of the most important culture they had ever known had lived for hundreds of years


* this gap in knowledge was responsible for some really crazy crapola, but isn't it always

I did not know that. Thank you.

Also, death to the Hittites.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, but I never made the statement, "Weakest argument for Shiva's divinity ever". In order to make a statement like you did, you must believe there are stronger arguments for Jesus' divinity and subsequently a strongest of the bunch. If you can't answer that question about which is the strongest argument then you have no right to say which is the weakest.

"I am become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds!"

Strong argument. Vishnu wins.

 

[DOC]

Care to comment on the claim by Jerome Murphy O'Connor that Luke's report of the census was nonsense?

I wish I could download that Video on my dial-up and my small memory computer. I'll have to invest in a more powerful computer some day.

Funny how I can't find any transcript of the interview on the net; or a article where he says the same thing.

Also it would seem Father O'Connor still believes in the Divinity of Jesus or he wouldn't still be a priest. Does anyone have any evidence that Father O'Connor is no longer a priest?

And if what O'Connor said about the census is true there would be a guy by the name of Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (a famous archaeologist who said Luke is one of the world's great historians) who would of disagreed with him. According to the book Examine the Evidence by Ralph Muncaster (Pg. 274) here are some of the things Sir Ramsay discovered in his 15 years of research in the biblical lands.

What critics thought: There was no Roman census (as indicated in Luke 2:1)

What Ramsay discovered: There was a Roman census every 14 years beginning with Emperor Augustus...

What critics thought: People did not have to return to their ancestral home (as indicated in Luke 2:3)

What Ramsay discovered: People did have to return to their home city--verified by an ancient Egyptian papyrus giving directions for conducting a census.

 

[boloboffin]

Books I have to learn myself some hieroglyphicking:

Decoding Egyptian Hieroglyphics by Bridgett McDermott
How To Read Egyptian Hieroglyphics by Collier and Manley
100 Hieroglyphics: Think Like An Egyptian by Barry Kemp
Book of the Dead, translation by Robert Faulkner
Transcription of Akhenaten's Hymn to the Sun

I'm ready.

 

[DOC]

I guess, the strongest argument for Jesus' divinity would be, in my opinion, is alleged aptitude at performing miracle convincing enough for his apostles and the onlooking crowd.

But Uri Geller, to name just one, would have a similarly convincing aptitude, and we can be reasonably certain he was a fraud.
And, of course, in the case of Jesus, we only have deformed hearsays about these so-called miracles, even weaker than for Geller.

Hence, even the strongest evidence of Jesus' divinity still is excruciatingly weak. In my humblest of opinion.

Yes, but there is a difference between bending spoons and walking on water and raising people from the dead who have been in a tomb for a few days.

 

[pakeha]

I wish I could download that Video on my dial-up and my small memory computer. I'll have to invest in a more powerful computer some day.

Funny how I can't find any transcript of the interview on the net; or a article where he says the same thing.

Also it would seem Father O'Connor still believes in the Divinity of Jesus or he wouldn't still be a priest. Does anyone have any evidence that Father O'Connor is no longer a priest?

And if what O'Connor said about the census is true there would be a guy by the name of Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (famous archaeologist) who would of disagreed with him. According to the book Examine the Evidence by Ralph Muncaster (Pg. 274) here are some of the things Sir Ramsay discovered in his 15 years of research n the biblical lands.

What critics thought: There was no Roman census (as indicated in Luke 2:1)

What Ramsay discovered: There was a Roman census every 14 years beginning with Emperor Augustus...

What critics thought: People did not have to return to their ancestral home (as indicated in Luke 2:3)

What Ramsay discovered: People did have to return to their home city--verified by an ancient Egyptian papyrus giving directions for conducting a census.

Still flogging sir William, then.
I find it wierd DOC only quotes people writing about sir William, rather than the man himself.
Also that DOC includes no link to Examine the Evidence by Ralph Muncaster (Pg. 274)
Could you please tell us more about the ancient Egyptian papyrus? This sonds interesting.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, but there is a difference between bending spoons and walking on water and raising people from the dead who have been in a tomb for a few days.

Quantitively, yes. Qualitively, no.

 

[joobz]

I wish I could download that Video on my dial-up and my small memory computer. I'll have to invest in a more powerful computer some day.

Funny how I can't find any transcript of the interview on the net; or a article where he says the same thing.

I agree. I do find it wierd that you couldn't find such a thing, as both Zooketrin and myself both found it with a quick google search.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/01/18/story38761.asp

‘‘Luke made a mistake’’ in inventing the census that took Jesus [of Nazareth] to Bethlehem, according to Fr Murphy O’Connor. ‘‘The census was nonsense. The census we’re told was for the Roman Empire. This wasn’t part of the Roman Empire, this was an independent Jewish kingdom. But Luke had to try and find a motive why a heavily pregnant woman would travel the length of the country.

‘‘He made a guess and he got it wrong . . . I think Bethlehem was an embarrassment to the early Christians. Because there was a messianic prophecy centred on Bethlehem, the prophecy of Micah, which promised a warrior king, and Jesus was anything but. He didn’t fulfil the messianic prophecy of Bethlehem.”

Also it would seem Father O'Connor still believes in the Divinity of Jesus or he wouldn't still be a priest. Does anyone have any evidence that Father O'Connor is no longer a priest?

Secondary to the issue. A "great historian" wouldn't make up a story. That's called lying. Luke lied to support his story.

And if what O'Connor said about the census is true there would be a guy by the name of Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (a famous archaeologist who said Luke is one of the world's great historians) who would of disagreed with him.

Actually, Sir William Mithcell Ramsay and Father O'Connor would likely have been in agreement with each other, given that Ramsay also called Luke a piece of Propoganda. To me, this indicates that he didn't consider Luke to be 100% trustworthy when it came to matters central to Jesus and christianity.

I would have definitely have loved to have seen the debate, however. Too bad it couldn't happen considering there's about 100 years that seperate the two people.

 

[DOC]

Actually, Sir William Mithcell Ramsay and Father O'Connor would likely have been in agreement with each other, given that Ramsay also called Luke a piece of Propoganda.

Source?

 

[Maia]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/SphynxPlane.jpg[/qimg]

HAHAHAHAH....

(rolling on the floor. I do try to avoid Internet abbreviations whenever possible.


Wow, talk about deja vu all over again with that list of Christian martyrs. Sometimes I have the odd feeling that I'm stuck in an infinite feedback loop. (Is that a groundhog walking on my keyboard?!? Nope, just a kitten. Off, Starbuck... OFF!) However, I always say that one might as well go back to Foxe's Book of Martyrs
and
Good old Eusebius if one really wants to do the thing correctly.

 

[Akhenaten]

Books I have to learn myself some hieroglyphicking:

Decoding Egyptian Hieroglyphics by Bridgett McDermott
How To Read Egyptian Hieroglyphics by Collier and Manley
100 Hieroglyphics: Think Like An Egyptian by Barry Kemp
Book of the Dead, translation by Robert Faulkner
Transcription of Akhenaten's Hymn to the Sun

I'm ready.

my bolding

Praise of Re Har-akhti, Rejoicing on the Horizon, in His Name as Shu Who Is in the Aten-disc, living forever and ever; the living great Aten who is in jubilee, lord of all that the Aten encircles, lord of heaven, lord of earth, lord of the House of Aten in Akhet-Aten

And praise of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, who lives on truth, the Lord of the Two Lands: Nefer-kheperu-Re Wa-en-Re; the Son of Re, who lives on truth, the Lord of Diadems: Akh-en-Aten, long in his lifetime.

And praise of the Chief Wife of the King, his beloved, the Lady of the Two Lands: Nefer-neferu-Aten Nefert-iti, living, healthy, and youthful forever and ever.​

You have chosen wisely.


Cheers,

Nepherkheperure Waenre Akhenaten

 

[DOC]

Secondary to the issue. A "great historian" wouldn't make up a story. That's called lying. Luke lied to support his story.

It is not secondary to the issue if Father O'Connor is still a priest and still believes in the Divinity of Jesus.

And so you're saying the physican Luke risked his life traveling with Paul {who was beaten several times (once unconscious) and also arrested at least twice} when he knew what he was writing about was a lie.