Part 2 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Dude... how about you read your own sources?

"The Location: the inscription's origin is not clearly known. It was found in the collection of a man named Fröhner when it was donated to the Paris National Library in 1925. His notes on the item state nothing more than "Dalle de marbre envoyée de Nazareth en 1878." That's it. This translates as "Slab of marble sent from Nazareth in 1878." Zulueta observes that this does not say "found" in Nazareth (découverte à), but sent from there, and it has been shown that Fröhner's "notes on the provenance of his treasures are very exact," thus he can be counted on to have chosen his words carefully.

In the late 19th century there were only two major market centers for all antiquities recovered in Palestine: Jerusalem and Nazareth. Thus, Zulueta makes the plausible conjecture that the slab was recovered either in Samaria or Decapolis and either purchased in or shipped out of the nearest possible place, which would be Nazareth. Indeed, Zulueta also observes that the text uses the plural form "gods" which would have been offensive to Jews, making the most likely origin the Hellenized district of Decapolis."

 

Yeah, like I said,... doubt will follow on the heels of these discoveries as they collectively reinforce each other, while the devils with agendas so obvious will continue to challenge the Bible IN THE ABSENCE of evidence they use to make up their questions.

The idiotic claim that there positively was no Nazareth because they could not research any evidence that there ever was comes first.
The two cases of hard evidence suggesting just maybe the Bible is correct is ignored as they raise there voices again with nothing in support of such denials.

These are the same people who insist that Moses never lived.
They claim Aaron and the Exodus was a myth.

They are proven wrong in this age, but silence follows, and even the faint possibility of arguing against substantial evidence that is thrown in their face.

This is the issue here.
It is not whether the evidence for Nazareth is air tight.

The issue is whether we ought even entertain that challenge to Nazareth based oin nothing, and used only to disparage the Bible for anti-christian reasons.

 

Oh, yes, now you turn on your own source.

Nobody is claiming that there positively wasn't some sort of Hamlet that people called Nazareth at the time of Jesus' supposed lifetime. At least I am not. It just seems pretty fishy to me that the Bible describes Nazareth as sitting on a hilltop while the buildings that archaeologists are finding are all in the valley. Does that not hit you as odd? Is the Bible incorrect?

Except, as I am currently pointing out to you, the evidence that is found doesn't match the Bible's description of the town. And the second piece of evidence isn't hard evidence for anything. The only reason it was called the Nazareth Inscription is because of the collector's notes on the object said: "Slab of marble sent from Nazareth in 1878."

Um. I would be one of those people. You think that 600,000 Jews suddenly left the powerful state of Egypt after 10 plagues (with the last one being the death of EVERY first born child) without ANY RECORD of this happening? And there just isn't any evidence of a guy named Moses living. None. Except the Bible. Most Biblical scholars readily admit that and will try to say that the character of Moses was based on early figures in Jewish history. I am fine with believing that.

 

The reason you don't know what I am talking about is because you kept talking confusedly, you ask why Western Christian waited for 600 years before calling for the crusade implying that the West was colluding with Muslim leaders and now you are educating me that the Byzantine is the Eastern Empire, didn't you know that? Can't you differentiate any more between Eastern and Western Roman Empire? And then you claim Muslim leaders allied with the Byzantine to fight the Western Christian Crusaders but you could not answer why the Muslim turn against the Byzantine if they were allies?

Here is the true story. When the Muslim armies were threatening Constantinople, the Eastern Pope send messengers to the Roman Catholic Pope for military assistance. The RC pope was ready and willing but not the secular leaders they want the Eastern church to surrender to the authority of the West. The East refuse instead they chose to be destroy by Islam rather than submitting or uniting with the Western church.

In other words, Christianity does not kill only people kill.

Finally, when Saladin was in serious trouble when he could not defeat the crusades and what he witness was the zeal of the Catholic knights even outnumber or fighting far away from their home they were still able to defeat and out fought the best Muslim holy warriors, that is when Saladin sign a treaty with the RC West, crusaders will leave the Middle East, Jerusalem was to be under Muslim rule with full access to Christian pilgrims and all Holy Sites safe guarded. Years later Muslim armies will invade mainland Europe.

 

True you know more than me that is why you have so many myth and unfounded stories and that is why I am here to make sure truth is made known.

Majority of scholars;
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[13][14][15] While the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity,[16][17] most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.[8][18][15]
Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" Ehrman, B. (2011). Forged : writing in the name of God. p. 285.

Michael Grant (aclassicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
^ Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X page 61
James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35–36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
^ a b c d e Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16
^ Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993) p. 5.
Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of Canonical Gospels pg 42 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
“The Historical Figure of Jesus," Sanders, E.P., Penguin Books: London, 1995, p., 3.
^ a b c Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the

Stay away from those conspiracy historians and stick more with the legitimate ones.

 

"Believed" is not evidence. Show me where the city existed in the 4th or 1st Century. No one even knew about it until the 4th Century. Your so called god man was strung up on a stick in 30 or 32 AD.

Oh I can discredit the NT with no problem. The fact you cannot prove this god man ever lived is discredit enough.

 

No, its called the Eastern Roman Empire because it didn't fall with the rest of the Roman Empire. In the 4th century I believe the Roman Empire got to big to control from one seat of power and it was seen as more effective to split it up. Culturally at the time when the Byzantine Empire was around it was culturally, politically, and geographically very much part of the West.

 

You really should learn more about this myth.....because all you have is the Bible and thats hearsay at its finest...Secular and Non Christian sources please, primary and contemporary sources please. 500 saw him perform miracles no one wrote nothing, He traveled all over and not one single person of the period historian or otherwise writes nothing. He totally escapes the view of Philo and others of the period. An amazing feat for some one with his talent huh? No, you got nothing don't know why I bother.

 

GP your wasting your time....this one and the other one are so brain washed it could be etched in stone and they will deny it....what they are doing is trying to use modern archeaology but what they fail to see is that we are talking 1st Century not frigging 21st Century. I clearly posted 2 pilgrim trade route maps of the 1st and 4th Century showing no Nazareth. I have lost all my research on this due to a computer failure...pisses me off...........

 

I don't like either !

The whole idea that God is this big bad tyrant who wants to control every aspect of the lives of humans through fear just does not make sense to me.

 

Irenaeus did not recognize Pauline material as doctrine and neither do I.

What is also interesting is that none of the early Church fathers believed in the Trinity (That Jesus was God the Father)

Dude .. why would you give me a link that does not support your claim. There is nothing in that link that states anything about the original source material for the Bible being kept because none of it was.

What part of .. "The Church destroyed all of the source material used to create the first Bible" Do you not understand ?

 

Forgot the link sorry.

The ones still in existence and they are fragments are the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. Chester Beatty Papyrus II is the earliest piece of the New Testament known to exist. It contains most of Paul's letters copied circa AD 100. Of course you could always ride on the Q Gospel...a hypothetical document.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

But bottom line no none of the originals exist.

 

The earliest Beatty papyrus is dated around 200 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_papyrus

Notice that all of the early parchments that may have served as source material for the Bible came from places "other" than the Vatican.

The fact that the Church destroyed all the source material used to create the first Bibles tells us much.

Why would the these devoutly religious Christian leaders destroy these "sacred" documents ?? Documents, some of which, had possibly been dictated or passed down by the disciples themselves ?

Answer ? - Either these documents were not that sacred and/or these Christian leaders were not that devout !
Probably a mixture of both.

 

How does the lack of reaction by the kingdoms of Christendom to Muslim conquest imply that the West was colluding with Muslim leaders? Jerusalem had been a part of the Byzantine Empire for 300 years. It was then a part of various Caliphates for 450 years. And guess what? From Constantine's time until the Muslim conquering of the city, Jews weren't allowed into the city. After the Muslim conquest? They were let right back in.

YOU NEED TO READ MORE ABOUT THIS TIME PERIOD.

You are clearly lost in this conversation because you don't know what happened. The Byzantines called for help from the Western powers; they needed help because they were under attack from the Seljuq Turks. They did. But, then they also decided to drive into territory that had not been under Christian control for over 450 years. Later on, the Crusaders decided to turn on the Byzantine Empire and sack Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.


There was more than one Crusade.

They lost to the Turks because the Crusaders had just sacked their capitol.

Saladin didn't go to the Byzantines, the Byzantine empire secretly colluded with Saladin because they were afraid of the Latin states invading their lands. Which they subsequently did, sacking Constantinople, which left them wide open for their destruction at the hands of the Ottomans.

 

Or they were hiding something.

 

Occam's razor ... The simplest theory is usually the best.

It is pretty obvious that they were hiding something.

Not only did the Church not keep any of the source documents .. they went on a destruction of knowledge campaign for the next 1000 years. They had lots and lots and lots to hide.

 

Yep. The holes in the script for their Jewish saviour bear that out.

 

The Bible was and is the beginning, it was and is the source of early science and modern science in providing them evidences and clues to the origin of the universe. The Bible is only a hearsay to those who are in a deluded mindset and have a hard time accepting reality and that is normal that is how things are.

No one wrote down at that time because they were really tantalize, others were too busy in plotting to kill Jesus Christ while others are still learning who Jesus Christ is. That is why history greatest man Jesus Christ single handedly with no army brought down the Roman Empire.

You bother because deep down inside you are interested in the truth.

 

Early church fathers recognize the Trinity they just could not yet understand how to coin it or term it, until finally they understood that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One = Trinity.
While the heretics could not accept and understand the Trinity for them it is three different gods that they relate to pagan practices even though the Bible has reveal and mention many times God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit unless they believe all three are different and distinct which would make matter worse then this would mean there are three gods not one, so instead of searching it seriously they decided to use it as an instrument to attack and separate from the Catholic church.

If the church had destroyed all the sources as you claim we wouldn't have the Holy Bible and all its supporting documents and history to discuss and or debate about it.

 

You tell me you are the one that is implying that is the case. The Byzantine is the Roman Eastern Empire the same Roman empire that destroyed the Temple of Solomon and expel all Jews after the Jews revolted against Roman rule in 66 AD and ever since they have been under strict control from returning. When the Muslims seize Jerusalem they desecrated Jewish Holy site by building on top of the Temple Mount the Al Aqsa Mosque, Islamization of Jerusalem and restricted the movement of Jews and Christians.

So I was correct to say that the Crusades was precipitated due to Muslim aggression and invasion. As I said also, the secular leaders in the West want the Eastern Byzantine to recognize their authority in other words surrender and when the Byzantine refuse the Western armies or rough crusaders ransack Constantinople. The Byzantine was weaken to defend themselves against the Muslim invaders, they fought the Muslims that led to their massacre again in other words they were massacre twice, Muslim occupiers waste no time they immediately carry out ethnic cleansing with the Islamization of the Byzantine empire.

yes there was more than one crusade because the Muslims just kept on waging aggressive wars against Christians.

Yes, and the Turkish-Muslims did not went into any alliance with the Byzantine, the Turk-Muslims as you said sacked and conquered Constantinople.

In other words your claim that Saladin allied with Byzantine was wrong.

 

/facepalm

I'm done here. Go learn to type in correct English grammar and we can talk sometime.

You know what? I do want to say one thing because it makes me upset with how ignorant you are of this time period.

"When the Muslims seize Jerusalem they desecrated Jewish Holy site by building on top of the Temple Mount the Al Aqsa Mosque, Islamization of Jerusalem and restricted the movement of Jews and Christians."

The Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. It hadn't been there for 600 friggin' years by the time Caliph Omar built the Dome of the Rock. That isn't desecration.

Oh, ahem, by the way, guess who destroyed the rebuilding of the Temple? The Sassanids took over Jerusalem in 610, allowing Jews to come back into the city and to start building the Temple. Shortly before the Byzantines retook the city in 615, the Sassanids gave control of the city to the Christian populace. The Christians tore down the building project and put a garbage dump in its place.

THAT is desecration.

 

My grammar is just an excuse for you to continue your position of being ignorant of Catholic history and the reality that God does exist.

Yes.

And the Muslim Caliph chose the Temple of Solomon Holy site was because he wants to erase everything that is Judaism and stop Jews from ever re-building the Temple of Solomon.

The Sassanid who were Persians in origin have no problem with Christians and Jews, Christians and Christians at that time believe in the separation of church and state.

Garbage dump at the Temple of Solomon!??.....reference please not just personal opinion.

Well, at least we're able to answer all your tough questions, and one for the road here are my top 10 historical heroes:
1. Jesus Christ
2. Buddha
3. Hugues de Payens
4. St. Francis of Assisi
5. Gen. Guan Yu (160 -219 AD)
6. Abraham Lincoln
7. Pope John Paul II
8. Dr. Sun Yet Sen
9. Eisenhower
10. "Iron Lady" M. Thatcher

 

With much regret I'm sure. There is more than 1 God. The old jewish texts refer to God as singular and plural many times.

 

Guy, you thought that the Templar Knights started the First Crusade. You're the one ignorant of the medieval history.

There is currently nothing stopping the Third Temple from being built, they just don't want to build it. In Judaism the Third Temple is rebuilt by the Messiah, not by the nation of Israel or any private organizations. Orthodox Jews have stood in the way of any attempt to rebuild the Temple.

Uh... no they didn't. Why would you even say such a ludicrous thing? The official religion of the Roman Empire was Christianity, they persecuted any other religious group, and they spread Christianity by the sword. How in the world can you say with a straight face that they respected a separation between Church and State?

Nope, not just personal opinion. Christians throughout history have had a slant towards Judaism.

Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, pg 166

"The place he identified was being used by Christians as a garbage dump."

Similarly, the Crusaders tore down a Jewish Synagogue after the Siege of Jerusalem in 1099.

 

We have reached 750 post, feel free to start another thread.

Shangrila
Site Moderator