Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
are you investigating the burning bush too? dumb cuck?
you're confused about the very essentials of religion.
Archaeology of the New Testament
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
you're confused about the very essentials of religion.
You have to be intelligent and investigate literary style and manuscript evidence to understand what in the Bible counts as historical narrative, allegory, metaphor, poetry, hyperbole, symbolism.
Christianity is based on the claim that a first century Jew from Galilee ministered, was crucified, and was seen again. If those are not historical facts then Christianity is just a result of fabrication and misunderstanding.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
so you're not investigating the burning bush.
knew it.
you're and anti-christian fraud.
christianity is based on accepting Jesus as your Lord and saviour and adopting his morality, the golden rule.
If he didn't actually exist, wasn't actually crucified, and didn't actually rise again then you are lying to yourself.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
and if there was no burning bush the Jews are lying to themselves.
My thread isn't about the Jews or the Old Testament
There is no eyewitness testimony for the events described in the Torah. The Torah is an ancient oral tradition written down by scribes 500 to 1,000 years after the events they describe.
That is a huge difference compared to ancient documents that are based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, or people who interviewed the eyewitnesses.
I’m stalking you.Smart people have wide-ranging interests, which may include history and archaeology.
You're free to dedicate your life to whining, griping, cursing, moaning, carping, and grumbling.
But you don't have any reason to get angry about what interests me.
I read every one of your posts.
Every single day.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
Intelligent people believe eyewitness testimony is generally more reliable than stories told 1,000 years later after the fact by people who weren't even there.total bullshit!
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
there is no eyewitness testimony.
second party eyewitness testimony is still hearsay, fucking fool.
I can name the writings of at least eight people who were either witnesses to Jesus' ministry and life, or who knew and interviewed the eyewitnesses.there is no eyewitness testimony!
By ancient standards, that is a shitload of testimony.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
but you're just a hack.Smart people have wide-ranging interests, which may include history and archaeology.
You're free to dedicate your life to whining, griping, cursing, moaning, carping, and grumbling.
But you don't have any reason to get angry about what interests me.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
that's hearsay.
eyewitness testimony has to be from a living person.
how retarded are you?
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
do you think people in the past never lied and were never wrong?
So your claim is that there were no eyewitnesses to George Washington's inauguration or to Abraham Lincoln's assassination.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
their testimony only had eyewitness value while they were alive.
anyone can write down a lie.
you're dumber than a shit brick.
If you think Christianity is based on a pack of lies, you should stop cynically wrapping yourself in a cloak of fake Christian righteousness.
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
I think it's based on faith.
you're just holding Christianity to different standards because you're an anti-christian.
So according to you, we can't actually be sure George Washington was inaugurated or that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated based on the surviving written accounts of long dead eyewitnesses.