Archeologly proves the Bible?

[eccles]

"Honestly, I urge you to heed the posts of Segereh and kmt_sesh on that other forum-- they seem to have very balanced insight on the subject matter."

Yes, I have had some very good replies from those People.

 

[amb]

Posted by DOC
Show me evidence that there is a priest on this planet who publicly says Christ is not divine and is still a priest in the Church.




I was talking about the Catholic Church whereas Spong Spongeiscopalian.

You're right about that, but would a catholic priest dare say out loud his doubts? His living depends on living a lie. Do you think the many catholic priest who sexually interfee with mainly little boys believe in jesus's divinity?

 

[eccles]

You're right about that, but would a catholic priest dare say out loud his doubts? His living depends on living a lie. Do you think the many catholic priest who sexually interfee with mainly little boys believe in jesus's divinity?

AND how many priests have sexually abused little boys and then, after such a mortal sin, SAID MASS

 

[amb]

I just love John Shelby Spong. I've read just about every single one of his books, and I quote him all the time around here. He is indeed a retired Episcopalian priest, and not only does he
say in all of his recent books that Jesus was not divine (he makes a very good argument that Jesus was a real person, but definitely not the Son of God, etc.), but he said these things before he was, shall we say, highly encouraged to retire. A priest is a priest, whether Catholic or Episcopalian or Kohanim or Orthodox or a traditional African religion or whatever, unless the person making the argument specifies exactly which type of priest he's talking about to begin with.

He caused quite a stir with his best work in my opinion, ''Saving The Bible from Fundamentalists''.
The church hierachy were running around like headless chooks. They didn't know how to answer his many truths or how to respond.

 

[pakeha]

Odd you should post that up, amb, as there is a thread somewhere abouts in which the OP apparently recommends looking at and touching others' genitals as a way to understand the certainty of God's existence.
On the serious side, kiddy diddlers are out there: priests, pastors, preachers, gym coaches, music teachers, babysitters, neighbors, rellies, are just some examples.
Fortunately, these issues are being treated much more openly than before. I look forward to studies and research on the subject, as I'd like to know just what makes a gym teacher/priest/relly think kiddy diddling is something he/she can allow themselves.

 

[amb]

AND how many priests have sexually abused little boys and then, after such a mortal sin, SAID MASS

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

The only place on Earth you may find more hypocrisy is in political circles. No, I take that back. There is no more hypocrisy than in the vatican.

 

[GreNME]

"Honestly, I urge you to heed the posts of Segereh and kmt_sesh on that other forum-- they seem to have very balanced insight on the subject matter."

Yes, I have had some very good replies from those People.

More to the fact is that they pointed out that there is no "Ancient Egyptian religion" in any kind of singular form, much like how there is no single "Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics" to identify as their writing (there are at least 5). Different Horus origins? I think I have three in my library and that's rather small in comparison with the variances out there. Heck, in some versions Isis isn't his mother (Hathor is). About the only consistent personification of Horus in terms of Ancient Egyptian narrative is that the pharaoh was the human personification of Horus of the Two Horizons, which stands for a unified leadership of Upper and Lower Egypt.

 

[eccles]

"Different Horus origins? I think I have three in my library and that's rather small in comparison with the variances out there. Heck, in some versions Isis isn't his mother (Hathor is)"

Would you believe even Murdock states that.

I have been following Segereh's posts on that Group. Today, through Segereh I got into a Web Site: ENKS.net and then to JSesh:
http://jsesh.qenherkhopeshef.org/en/frontpage?destination=frontpage

I joined that and download their Hieroglyphic Editor. I'll see if it easier than the Inscribe one I have. There are good lessons on the JSesh site.

 

[DOC]

So, like Luke, you feel it is acceptable to make up stories to justify your faith.

It's funny how the Romans (for whom the Christians were causing all kinds of problems for almost 300 years) never said, "Hey Luke was wrong -- there was no taxation or census done by us around the time of Christ's birth in that area. You've got to ask yourself, why not. Surely the Romans took the time to read the most popular gospels circulating around -- they had about 240 years to do it. Why didn't they just say, Luke made that up?

The most obvious answer would be that man who has been called one of the world's great historians didn't make it up.

 

[DOC]

But, Mate. LUKE is not a historical author. I keep on pointing out that "Luke" is just a name given much later in Church history.

Then who put all this information in the Book of Acts and for what reason:

From the Theology Web: FEATURED ARTICLE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Frank Turek.


"Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke's accuracy in the book of Acts verse by verse. With painstaking detail, Hemer identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research.

As you read the following list, keep in mind that Luke did not have access to modern-day maps or nautical charts.

Luke accurately records:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)

2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)

3. the proper location of Lycaonia (14:6)

4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51643

Do not quote large portions of copyrighted material.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[zooterkin]

Then who put all this information in the Book of Acts and for what reason:

From the Theology Web: FEATURED ARTICLE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist:
...

Which of those tells us the author's name?

 

[DOC]

Which of those tells us the author's name?

Frank Turek is the author and was added.

 

[zooterkin]

Frank Turek is the author and was added.

No, I meant the name of the author of Acts, since that was the point you were replying to. Or are you saying that Frank Turek wrote the Acts of the Apostles?

 

[joobz]

It's funny how the Romans (for whom the Christians were causing all kinds of problems for almost 300 years) never said, "Hey Luke was wrong -- there was no taxation or census done by us around the time of Christ's birth in that area. You've got to ask yourself, why not. Surely the Romans took the time to read the most popular gospels circulating around -- they had about 240 years to do it. Why didn't they just say, Luke made that up?

You haven't even read the gospels fully. WHy would you think other would have.

Sorry. Luke lied.

 

[joobz]

Then who put all this information in the Book of Acts and for what reason:

From the Theology Web: FEATURED ARTICLE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Frank Turek.

all of which is meaningless, when we consider the fact that luke was willing to make up stories to support his faith. Just ask the leading expert of Biblical Exegesis, Father Murphy-O'Connor.

 

[eccles]

How neutral is this Theology Web as far as belief in a "god" is concerned?
I have not the time to go through it.

This Colin J. Hemer seems to be biased towards Christianity:
Genres: Bible / Criticism, Interpretation / New Testament ,Christianity / History ,Textbooks (Various Levels) ,Seven churches ,Bible - N.T. Acts
He does not qualify as a neutral source of information. I can't find any bio on him. All I can find is a list of his books about the New Testament and Christianity.

Now Hemer goes through a list of locations and says they all existed. SO WHAT. How many books of fiction, classics like those of Charles Dickens are set in English cities. How about "Gone with the Wind", set in Georgia during the Civil War, but none of the Characters were real people except Sherman and Jefferson Davis and of course Lincoln.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

My experience with Roman Catholic priests is that most of them know very little. In seminary they are taught Theology and Philosophy and how to say Mass and perform the other services. It is only those who take the bible seriously enough to study it. I can say the same could be the case with many Ministers. I had a discussion with the minister of the local church about the bible and I knew a lot more than he did.

* The redactors of the Gospel according to Luke did that.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

Ach, you're probably right. I just used to know a bunch of Jesuits, who put a premium on learning and knew all this stuff inside out.

Certainly my priest (Anglican) is extremely bright and knows her stuff, and *she* doesn't think that the census happened as described in Luke.

 

[eccles]

My books on the Valley of the Kings

For those who have expressed interest of what I have on the Valley of the Kings, here are the books I have from the Theban Mapping Project

 

[eccles]

My books on the Valley of the Kings

"Ach, you're probably right. I just used to know a bunch of Jesuits, who put a premium on learning and knew all this stuff inside out."

I suffered 12 years at a Jesuit College. All any priest knows is what the church allows him.
A parish priest in Brisbane, Australia just got defrocked for his ideas - against those of the church. He had doubts if Jesus as a man ever existed.

 

[pakeha]

It's funny how the Romans (for whom the Christians were causing all kinds of problems for almost 300 years) never said, "Hey Luke was wrong -- there was no taxation or census done by us around the time of Christ's birth in that area. You've got to ask yourself, why not. Surely the Romans took the time to read the most popular gospels circulating around -- they had about 240 years to do it. Why didn't they just say, Luke made that up?

The most obvious answer would be that man who has been called one of the world's great historians didn't make it up.

Is this another variant of the argumentum ad populum?
Or challenging us to prove a negative?
And ending the post with a non-sequitur, always so convincing.
In any case, I'm not sure why DOC has convinced him/herself that 'the Romans' would have given any importance to the gospels whatsoever. And especially that of 'Luke',

.... who has been called one of the world's great historians...

Who says that 'Luke' was one of the world's great historians?
I'd like to think this statement isn't based on a misquoted and outdated academic with the initials WR.