Christiantoday: "archaeologist Says New Find Supports The Nt"

[rjn]

 

 

The ruins of an Israeli synagogue allegedly confirms New Testament portrayals of Jesus' life as accurate.

[...]

 

Edwards told Christian Today: "Archaeological finds, such as this latest discovery of remains of a first century synagogue in Galilee, point to the fact that not only is the Bible a good story, it's also a true story. One good reason for trusting the Bible is that it passes every test that historians can throw at an historical document; and correspondence with the archaeological evidence is one of those tests.

 

"If the Bible was simply a made-up story, then we would expect as we keep discovering more about the ancient world from archaeology, that eventually something is going to show the Bible to be wrong. But what we find is the exact opposite."

 

[...]

 

 

 

Source:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/synagogue.discovered.from.jesus.time.confirms.accuracy.of.new.testament.says.archaeologist/93435.htm

 

Can someone please tell me what the hell they are on about? They provide no solid argument at all except the empty phrase "Archaeology supports the New Testament". Okay, how? Did I miss something?

 

 

[Storm]

This article is nothing. It cites no sources, provides no evidentiary value and is basically a bunch of Christian propaganda. Besides, even if Jesus did exist, and he did in fact preach at this particular synagogue, it doesn't make the bible any more true. Just because the bible has actual historical places and people doesn't make what it says true.

 

Edit: Reading it again, I noticed the following quote that basically says it all:

 

 

He added the find was "very important for Christians" and hoped the remote site could become a tourist attraction for Jews and Christians alike.

Its all about the money.

[rjn]

I just don't get it, how does it prove anything about Jesus and the New Testament? They found a synagogue from the first century... and then? Is this what Christians think qualifies as "proof"?

[Storm]

Is this what Christians think qualifies as "proof"?

Yes, unfortunately. Christianity laps up feel good stories and things that validate their faith. Remember, if its on the internet, it has to be true.

 

Christianity never requires fact checking. They just take what the other Christians say on faith. I mean, why would they lie? They're Christians! You can trust them.

[midniterider]

A synagogue was built in Galilee , therefore the holy babble is true and Jebus wants a personal relationship with YOU! 

 

 

 

 

I wonder how they know it's a synagogue? Compared to a market? Or a house? 

[rjn]

I know many Christians resort to circular reasoning, and most don't even bother with "proof" since they've got faith, but nonetheless, from time to time, they do try to use arguments based on "proof", but this example here is just... I mean, it's not even an argument for Christs sake! It basically follows this kind of "reasoning":
X means Y.

I say X means Z.

Therefor, X is proof of Z.

[Guest Furball]

The vampire series called twilight uses real locations in the pacific northwest which can actually be verified to be where the books themselves say they are. Does this prove that there is a coven of vampires living in the pacific northwest? The reasoning used in that article is so laughable it's not even worth commenting on. So you found a location...great. It doesn't prove anything. That fact that this person calls the bible a "good story" shows they have never read the bible at all. Christians make all kinds of outlandish statements backing them up by saying "it's true" without ever giving any evidence to prove what they say is actually true. Only the brainwashed christian's can read an article like that and believe it. I wouldn't get into a huff and puff about the article rjn. These are the same people who think 2 penguins and 2 polar bears entered an ark in the middle east. 

[Shinzon]

So a historical figure clouded in myth visited a real place, big deal.

[rjn]

I wouldn't get into a huff and puff about the article rjn.

 

I don't, it's just that I find their reasoning - or rather, lack thereof - fascinating. They're not even providing a fallacious argument, they are simply not providing an argument at all.

 

So a historical figure clouded in myth visited a real place, big deal.

 

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Jesus was a real historical character: they still haven't provided any evidence at all that he visited that particular place, they simply assume that he did.

 

"Jesus visited places of worship. This here is a place of worship, so Jesus must have been here".

[Shinzon]

Your right rjn, i was mostly thinking in terms of there reasoning and what is could possibly be stated.

[sdelsolray]

The only evidence from the article: "This is the first synagogue discovered in the rural part of the Galilee"

 

One claim from the article:  "The findings confirm that Jesus once preached at the synagogue, according to a senior researcher at the Kinneret Institute for Galilean Archaeology."

 

Another claim from the article: "[The discovery] confirms historical information we have about the New Testament, which says that Jesus preached at synagogues in Galilean villages."

 

A third claim from the article:  "Archaeological finds, such as this latest discovery of remains of a first century synagogue in Galilee, point to the fact that not only is the Bible a good story, it's also a true story."

 

Note how the evidence does not support any of the claims.

 

The article, more specifically the Christian chumps quoted in it, is typical theistic nonsense.

[♦ ficino ♦]

It was on the internet. That's even better than in the old days, when they'd say, "As seen on TV."

 

Where do I send my check, and to whom do I make it out?

[mwc]

     Usually we see these sort of puff pieces around xmas or easter.

 

     The article is saying that this confirms the gospels in that the synagogue they discovered in this rural place was not used for sacrifices but apparently for things that jesus did such as study and teaching.  But, to my knowledge, no one has ever asserted that synagogues were ever used for sacrifices so it's a straw man simply to win the gospels are true argument.  Only the temple, since it was established, has been used for sacrifices in Israel (and maybe the alternate temple in Egypt but that's some altogether different) but not synagogues.

     This is all about money.  People pay a lot to go on tours to see sites related to the gospels and especially jesus.  By saying this site could be some place jesus visited the sheep will flock to it.  It really diminishes the importance of the site in and of itself.

 

          mwc

[L.B.]

Remember that ANYTHING having to do with 1st-C Judaism is like the kinkiest of porn to fundamentalist Christards.

 

They LOVE the idea that the concatenated mess of made-up miracle stories and post-Jesus accretions and biased editing called the New Testicle

might have anything at all to do with the Judaism of Jesus' time.

 

As others have said, even if there was a historical Jesus, saying that a Jew went to a synagogue (whether it was that one or not) is like saying a person from New York City crossed Broadway at some point in their life.

 

Yeah... so?

[pratt]

and india has proofs that jesus was there when young,,,, and he quoted similar stuff from india,,,,

 

yup,,, thats it