Archeology

[Jon]

Archeology seems to be the thing that has dissuaded you in this forum.

It makes no sense.

Archeology can only prove christianity,it cant disprove him.

If evidence is found,good.

If evidence is not found,does this really disprove christianity?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

It ain't my place to tell you what to do; but, as a suggestion, maybe address the other threads you've started before starting new ones.  One thing at a time, son.

[Astreja]

Jon, archaeology can only prove that places described in the Bible existed.  It cannot be used to support even a single "miracle."  Does the existence of New York City prove that Spiderman and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man are real?

 

It can also disprove Christianity totally and permanently, if and when the bones of a historical Jesus are found.

[disillusioned]

Again, Jon, what are you talking about specifically?

[sdelsolray]

3 hours ago, Jon said:

Archeology seems to be the thing that has dissuaded you in this forum.

It makes no sense.

Archeology can only prove christianity,it cant disprove him.

If evidence is found,good.

If evidence is not found,does this really disprove christianity?

 

 

What about when evidence is not found where it should be found?  What about when evidence is found which falsifies a Biblical story?  Here are some examples utilizing aspects of archeology, anthropology, paleontology, geology, linguistics, biology and genetics:

 

1)  Adam and Eve.  If this Biblical tale is true, certain evidence should be present to support the story.  It's not.  Indeed, the actual evidence demonstrates the life creation story in Genesis is false.

 

2)  Exodus.  If the story in Exodus is true, the Sinai desert should be full of artifacts, remains of dead people and animals and other evidence of human habitation, short term settlements and travel.  There is none.

 

3)  The Noachian Flood.  If this Biblical story was true certain evidence would be readily present all over the planet.  It's not.  Again, the actual evidence shows the story of a worldwide flood and resulting genetic bottlenecks in virtually all species never occurred.

 

4)  Tower of Babel.  This is another story which is refuted by actual empirical evidence.  The development and radiation of different languages happened over at least 10,000 years, not in some magical moment in a story.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Jon, there is no one single reason for every ex-christian here. We come from different backgrounds and there are a variety of things that led us here. True, for some the primary reason was archaeology, and it is a valid reason, but it's not everyone's primary reason. For me and many others, the Bible was actually the primary source that led us to where we are now. For some others, it was science. For some others, it was personal experiences with the church's discrimination. For some others, it was simply good ol' common sense applied to what they heard in church. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

 

Anyway, since you mentioned archaeology, I highly recommend "The Bible Unearthed," which shows how archaeology has indeed undermined a lot of things in the Bible. If interested, you can get it here:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491098412&sr=8-1&keywords=bible+unearthed

 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎02‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 8:28 AM, Jon said:

Archeology seems to be the thing that has dissuaded you in this forum.

It makes no sense.

Archeology can only prove christianity,it cant disprove him.

If evidence is found,good.

If evidence is not found,does this really disprove christianity?

 

Well Archaeology is a favourite of mine.... so I'll actually respond to this.

 

1) It makes no sense to YOU. There are many things that make sense to some people and not to others. So remember when you are debating you want to find out why people believing things, and whether your counterpoint is true.

2) Archaeology can only prove Christianity: Massively false assertion. Keeping it to the Bible for a minute, if you want to believe everything you find proves the bible REGARDLESS of what the evidence actually is, then yes it will prove the bible. Christian Biblical archaeologists often sign statements to the effect that they will NOT discover anything that contradicts the bible. You have a conflict right there.

3) Evidence found often proves locations etc (Sdelsolray has already hinted at this). It does nothing to prove the truth of the Christian message. In fact looking deeper into it, major stories reported in the Bible do not line up with what is actually found.

4) No evidence found certainly does not disprove Christianity, but along with many other bits of information goes towards forming the conclusion that Christianity is false.

 

Do you have any examples of Biblical archaeology that you think "Proves Christianity?" If so please elaborate.

 

PS The Book that Citsonga recommended is brilliant. Here is the documentary of that book:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-bible-unearthed/

 

What is interesting is reading the vitriol from Christians towards these archaeologists. The authors have hit a nerve and its stinging. Cries of false Jews, devil deceivers etc go up. No, these are just archaeologists reporting the truth of what they find, rather than reporting what people want to hear. Back in the 50's/60's there was a scholar who, despite knowing it would ruin him, wrote a book about how the early church and bible came to be - completely ruined him.

 

By the way the list of things that 'turned me from Christianity' are: 

Archaeology

Biblical study/textual critique

Science

Mythology and other religions

Psychology and how it relates to religion

Philosophy

General arguments against God of the bible.

 

So there is no one thing, rather a massive preponderance of evidence and information.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

I can't say it any better than logical already has. The absence of archeological finds speaks volumes. The bible makes many BOLD claims that would have left it's mark in the specific areas it mentions. Let's put in some variables for faith.

 

X = A  belief in the foundational story's of the old testament and that they are true historical accounts of God's exploits

 

Y= A belief that the new testament is the continuation of the old testament and that Jesus is savior

 

Z = Faith

 

X+Y=Z

 

If we lose x or y, Z will most likely be lost.

 

This only works for the logical mind. Blind faith would probably be better categorised if filed in with stupidity or insanity.

 

The bible outlines what makes up each variable. For example.

 

(According to the bible Moses wrote the penteuch. Everything involving the exodus, which is moses'personal story, should be visible through archeology. Likewise many of the claims of pre-exodus should be able to be proven through archeology. This was during a time God didn't require faith. He supposedly showed up and proved that he was real. ) This = X.

 

(Jesus and the apostles quoted the scriptures of the old testament to form the basis of the belief in Christ. The epistles and the gospels should likewise be able to be proven authentic and hold up to scrutiny. One has to believe that Jesus is the son of God and he died for their sins to be saved correct? Also the new testament makes very bold claims as to what an all powerful God will do for his followers. His presence should also be manifest in the believers life) This = Y.

 

 

X

The absence of archeology has punched holes in the old testament all over the place. Not only that, some of the things they have discovered like the ugarit tablets and the dead Sea scrolls paint a whole new picture of biblical origins and actually does disprove some aspects of the old testament. (If one studies this and sees the findings as truth then Z is no longer the out come.

 

Y

Scrutiny of the new testament can be found in some well rounded studies of biblical forgeries. One will find that many of the books of the new testament are in fact forgeries written to address issues that didn't come along until after the apostles had passed away. Also gods presence should be visibly manifest in the believers life. After all he did say anything asked in his sons name would be granted. I don't remember seeing strings attached on that statement. And unlike x, y is dependant on x being truth. If x is the only variable that's true then one would need to convert to judaism (This could also make one lose faith)

 

X and y

Contradictions! Both testaments are filled with them. For some this one will cause reason to doubt.

 

Logical reason! Many stories in both testaments can also be disproven by thinking things out logically. When it looks like a myth, reads like a myth, then it's probably a myth.

 

When X no longer equals X and/or Y no longer equals Y, then faith will be lost. 

 

These are just a few things that will mess up Christianitys equation of faith. There are more I'm sure.

 

Christs days are limited. More and more people are seeing reason daily. A building can only have so many holes punched in it and still stand. 

 

Dark Bishop

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Christs days are limited. More and more people are seeing reason daily. A building can only have so many holes punched in it and still stand. 

 

Dark Bishop

 

DB, I think you seriously underestimate the stupidity of humans. When one argument fails, they make up shit to take its place.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

53 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

DB, I think you seriously underestimate the stupidity of humans. When one argument fails, they make up shit to take its place.  

I have FAITH! ?

[midniterider]

On 4/1/2017 at 1:28 PM, Jon said:

Archeology seems to be the thing that has dissuaded you in this forum.

It makes no sense.

Archeology can only prove christianity,it cant disprove him.

If evidence is found,good.

If evidence is not found,does this really disprove christianity?

 

Christianity has been proven?

 

Why do Christians insist that their 'vague thoughts about a deity' are actual reality? They spend so much time in their lives worshiping an imaginary being that gives them nothing in return.

[Jeff]

On 4/1/2017 at 3:28 PM, Jon said:

... Archeology can only prove christianity,it cant disprove him...

How could archeology possibly prove a religion?

At best it could support statements about people and places from the Bible but that would not prove a virgin birth or a resurrection, or that a man was the son of a god. 

 

On 4/1/2017 at 3:28 PM, Jon said:

... If evidence is found,good...

Not necessarily true. Evidence could be found that indicates that the Bible is not accurate which would knock down many variations of Christianity that require the Bible to be inerrant. 

 

On 4/1/2017 at 3:28 PM, Jon said:

If evidence is not found,does this really disprove christianity?

It could further weaken an already incredibly weak and easily refuted bible. 

 

You are back to making huge assumptions about things.

 

I suggest that you listen to some of Matt Dillahunty's (sp?) podcasts or YouTube vids to learn some of the rules of how to argue a good point that won't get shot down by an amateur like me in under 5 seconds. 

You seem to want to convince us, but your skills in debate and logical discussion are rather weak. You can present your case much better with just a little effort on your part. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Archaeology proves the existence of gods because statues and shit.  Why would statues of gods exist if gods didn't exist?  And who put those statues there in the first place?

 

Check mate, motherfuckers.

[Geezer]

One man's evidence is another man's folly.  There is a ton of convincing evidence that the bible is a collection of myths, folklore, & legends. Christianity should be correctly defined as Christian mythology, but no amount of evidence will ever convince a diehard fundy that those bible stories are not historically accurate. 

[Geezer]

On April 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Astreja said:

Jon, archaeology can only prove that places described in the Bible existed.  It cannot be used to support even a single "miracle."  Does the existence of New York City prove that Spiderman and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man are real?

 

It can also disprove Christianity totally and permanently, if and when the bones of a historical Jesus are found.

 

That will never happen because it is likely the gospel story is fictional as are all the characters in it. Jesus, the Son of Man, was a literary character, not a real person. 

[midniterider]

Jon, come back to play !

[Jon]

what do you want to play midnitrider?

Do you believe the wages of sin is death?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, Jon said:

what do you want to play midnitrider?

Do you believe the wages of sin is death?

I believe you need to get your ass to The Arena.  That's what I believe.

[Jeff]

Yep. You asked for a debate. Go do it. 

Do it for Jesus. 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, Jon said:

what do you want to play midnitrider?

Do you believe the wages of sin is death?

 

And here ladies and gentlemen, if you look closely, you can see a christian doing a move they are so famous for - avoiding serious debate!

 

We can see our newest local resident Christian wandering aimlessly about posting in EVERY thread except the one that matters. Classic tactic folks, classic tactic.

 

At this point I think I may need to take back all my 'go easy' advice to L.B and just let Jon 'have it'!

 

You had your chance Christian Jon. You blew it.

 

Now, you are needed here: 

 

[sdelsolray]

On 4/1/2017 at 1:28 PM, Jon said:

Archeology seems to be the thing that has dissuaded you in this forum.

It makes no sense.

Archeology can only prove christianity,it cant disprove him.

If evidence is found,good.

If evidence is not found,does this really disprove christianity?

 

Please define "archeology".  I'm not sure you and I see that word in the same way.

[Astreja]

9 hours ago, Jon said:

Do you believe the wages of sin is death?

 

I'm going to give my $0.02 CDN here.

 

Putting aside for the moment that "sin" is an imaginary crime against an imaginary being, and using it in the colloquial sense of "bad behaviour" with no gods in the equation, I don't see a strong correlation between behaviour and death.  There are situations where behaving badly will get you killed, but no amount of good behaviour will make you immortal.  The probability of living beings dying is 1.0, independent of behaviour.

 

FFS, being "sinless" didn't even work for Jesus in the Gospel myths -- he snuffed it anyway.

[midniterider]

23 hours ago, Jon said:

what do you want to play midnitrider?

Do you believe the wages of sin is death?

 

No. I think we just die eventually because the body gets worn out. Nor do I think that thoughts are sinful. Nor do I think that activities that do not cause harm to anyone are sinful.

[midniterider]

13 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

 "sin" is an imaginary crime against an imaginary being

 

Concise. I love that.

[Ellinas]

Please note what the column to the left of the page says about my preferred belief system.

 

Now tell me why the excavations at Knossos do not provide as much proof for Minos and the excavations of Schliemann do not provide as much proof for the Trojan War, Homer and hence all the mythological background of Greek religion as anything found in Israel does for Christianity.

 

Perhaps you backed the wrong horse in preferring Yahweh and Christ over Zeus and the rest of the Olympians?

 

Or perhaps Archaeology isn't quite the evidence you hope for...

 

Or, maybe, we should all have taken more note of the fact that the original post was made on April 1st...