Archeologly proves the Bible?

[joobz]

Source?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4713194#post4713194
He didn't say propoganda, only that one must stay within the realm of science and Justice. I'm certain given today's evidence and the knowledge obtained in the past 100 years, Ramsay would agree with O'Connor.

 

[joobz]

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

Yup, So?
He still called Luke's story complete nonsense, which hurts your argument completely.

And so you're saying 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.

yup.
Many times people will invent lies to continue to believe the lies they were told.

 

[Akhenaten]

Doc, I can't help noticing that you only seem to involve yourself in discussions with the atheists in the thread whilst ignoring the deities and living gods who are posting.

What's going on with that?

 

[zooterkin]

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

What the **** do you mean? Joobz and I have both given links in this thread.

 

[Ladewig]

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.

DOC, you're right. I shouldn't have called it the weakest. I withdraw the comment. I want to change my response to the silliest of all reasons to accept the divinity to Jesus.

 

[joobz]

DOC, you're right. I shouldn't have called it the weakest. I withdraw the comment. I want to change my response to the silliest of all reasons to accept the divinity to Jesus.

No. It's a great reason to accept Jesus. Just Like DOC also accepts Thor, god of thunder, given that one of the seven days of the week is named after him.

Similarly, I'm sure DOC also believes in Saturn, Tyr, Woden, Venus, ...

 

[Cleon]

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

Actually, yes, it's entirely secondary to the question of whether archaeology proves the Bible.

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.

And this is word salad, but also beside the point.

 

[Hokulele]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4713194#post4713194
He didn't say propoganda, only that one must stay within the realm of science and Justice. I'm certain given today's evidence and the knowledge obtained in the past 100 years, Ramsay would agree with O'Connor.

I think people are getting the Ramsay quote-mine confused with the Sherwin-White quote-mine (he was the historian calling it "propaganda").

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4574199#post4574199

Since they both came from Geisler, I can see why.

 

[joobz]

I think people are getting the Ramsay quote-mine confused with the Sherwin-White quote-mine (he was the historian calling it "propaganda").

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4574199#post4574199

Since they both came from Geisler, I can see why.

AHh, thank you. It's funny how after awhile all the dishonesty blends together after awhile.

 

[paximperium]

And this is word salad, but also beside the point.

It sounds like a word salad because he attempts to load his sentences with an attempt at authority/consequence(ie. Logical Fallacies) etc. to make a weak argument seem stronger.

eg. So why would Bill(who is a janitor at Harvard) lie about how Bob the prophet who used his magic laser eyes, the only magic power ever claimed by any religion, to save Bill(a great janitorial historian) from the giant flying monkeys(who must have hated Bill for telling the truth about the prophet) as written in the Gospel of Bill?

 

[DOC]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4713194#post4713194
He didn't say propoganda, only that one must stay within the realm of science and Justice. I'm certain given today's evidence and the knowledge obtained in the past 100 years, Ramsay would agree with O'Connor.

OK, then Ramsay didn't say propaganda like you said he said -- and what evidence are you talking about in the past 100 years that would make Sir Ramsay wrong when he discovered there was a Roman census every 14 years beginning with Emperor Augustus.

 

[paximperium]

-- and what evidence are you talking about in the past 100 years that would make Sir Ramsay wrong when he discovered there was a Roman census every 14 years beginning with Emperor Augustus.

You mean the evidence that the timing of the census occurred years after the rule of Herod the Great and that it only occurred in Roman territory, not in an independent client state?

 

[DOC]

I think people are getting the Ramsay quote-mine confused with the Sherwin-White quote-mine (he was the historian calling it "propaganda").

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4574199#post4574199

Actually this is what Sherwin-White said:

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions." - Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament by A. N. Sherwin-White pg 189.

I guess he believes anything to do with the Divinity of Christ is a distortion. He accepts the history of Acts as overwhelming, but once Acts talks religion, he calls it propoganda. That is a supernatural bias, plain and simple.

 

[joobz]

OK, then Ramsay didn't say propaganda like you said he said -- and what evidence are you talking about in the past 100 years that would make Sir Ramsay wrong when he discovered there was a Roman census every 14 years beginning with Emperor Augustus.

Much of the argument for why Luke was dead wrong can be found here. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4735343#post4735343


But from a broader context, Ramsay did not have access to the dead sea scrolls or the entirety of the Codex Sinaiticus. So, really, any statement by you claiming his authority over O'Connor is simply foolishness.

It would be like listening to Mendel explain the mechanism for how genetics works. He may have an understanding THAT genetics exist, but without the knowledge of DNA, his opinions on such a topic were merely conjecture.

 

[joobz]

I guess he believes anything to do with the Divinity of Christ is a distortion. He accepts the history of Acts as overwhelming, but once Acts talks religion, he calls it propoganda. That is a supernatural bias, plain and simple.

If by bias, you mean he ignores fantasy, then yes. Yes it is.

 

[Hokulele]

I guess he believes anything to do with the Divinity of Christ is a distortion. He accepts the history of Acts as overwhelming, but once Acts talks religion, he calls it propoganda. That is a supernatural bias, plain and simple.

So?

 

[paximperium]

Actually this is what Sherwin-White said:

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions." - Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament by A. N. Sherwin-White pg 189.

I guess he believes anything to do with the Divinity of Christ is a distortion. He accepts the history of Acts as overwhelming, but once Acts talks religion, he calls it propoganda. That is a supernatural bias, plain and simple.

Talking about Quote Mining propaganda:
http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html

 

[DOC]

You mean the evidence that the timing of the census occurred years after the rule of Herod the Great and that it only occurred in Roman territory, not in an independent client state?

So are you saying the Land of Palestine occupied with Roman soldiers is not Roman territory?

And are you saying Herod was not a puppet of the Romans:

From Wiki on Herod

"Herod fled to Rome to plead with the Romans to restore him to power. There he was elected "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate.[10"]...

"Three years later, Herod and the Romans finally captured Jerusalem and executed Antigonus. Herod took the role as sole ruler of Israel and the title of basileus (Gr. Βασιλευς, king) for himself, ushering in the Herodian Dynasty and ending the Hasmonean Dynasty. Josephus reports this as being in the year of the consulship of Agrippa and Gallus (37 BC), but also says that it was exactly 27 years after Jerusalem fell to Pompey, which would indicate 36 BC. (Cassius Dio also reports that in 37 "the Romans accomplished nothing worthy of note" in the area.[11]) According to Josephus, he ruled for 37 years, 34 years of them after capturing Jerusalem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

 

[paximperium]

So are you saying the Land of Palestine occupied with Roman soldiers is not Roman territory?

Yes.

And are you saying Herod was not a puppet of the Romans:

He was supported by the Romans and Judea was a Roman client state. In what way does that make Judea a Roman territory?

 

[Hokulele]

DOC, what exactly do you think "sole ruler of Israel" means?


Hint, whether or not he had associations with Rome in no way means that citizens of Israel were required to register for a Roman census.