Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by inimalist
Timbo: Regardless of what evidence there is for Jesus, there is still far more documentation for Mohammad, he almost certainly existed, whereas there is considerable doubt about Christ.

If historical accuracy is proof of validity, why then is Islam not more true than Christianity?

Oh, I think you're right. There is virtually no doubt as to the existence of Mohammad. And if we were simply debating the historical accounts of great religious founders, perhaps the scales would tip in favor of Islam in this case.

But Mohammad never claimed to be God. Jesus did. Mahammed never claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus did. Mohammad did not die for the sins of his followers. Jesus did. And Mohammad's conception of Jesus is altogether contrary to the best and earliest documentary evidence -- namely, the New Testament Gospels.

Additionally, there is exceptional doubt as to the historicity of Mohammad's story...at least, certain paranormal parts of it. For example, the idea that he was illiterate when he wrote the Koran is dubious. As a Christian, I don't have any problem with the idea of God performing miracles, but Mohammad's long history as a successful merchant makes me wonder how he got along without some basic literary and mathematical skills.

The fact that history clearly teaches the existence of Mohammad, does not subtract from the historicity of Christ or the reliability of the New Testament. Keep in mind, Mohammad did not launch the Islamic faith until the early 600s AD, making the accounts of Jesus much earlier. Also, the historical evidence for Christ is only "inferior" to other contemporary figures if one discounts the New Testament Gospels. As I have mentioned in other strings, there is good evidence supporting the reliability of the Gospels. Here's a blurb from Strobel, if you're interested:

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1142

The bottom line is, if the New Testament is historically reliable, then one is confronted with a significant problem: The New Testament claims to be the Word of God, along with the Old Testament that it repeatedly affirms. To prove historicity is to prove, among other things, the actuality of Christ's resurrection and divinity -- and that's not something your average Bible critic wants to do.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Oh, I think you're right. There is virtually no doubt as to the existence of Mohammad. And if we were simply debating the historical accounts of great religious founders, perhaps the scales would tip in favor of Islam in this case.

But Mohammad never claimed to be God. Jesus did. Mahammed never claimed to be the Messiah. Jesus did. Mohammad did not die for the sins of his followers. Jesus did. And Mohammad's conception of Jesus is altogether contrary to the best and earliest documentary evidence -- namely, the New Testament Gospels.

Additionally, there is exceptional doubt as to the historicity of Mohammad's story...at least, certain paranormal parts of it. For example, the idea that he was illiterate when he wrote the Koran is dubious. As a Christian, I don't have any problem with the idea of God performing miracles, but Mohammad's long history as a successful merchant makes me wonder how he got along without some basic literary and mathematical skills.

The fact that history clearly teaches the existence of Mohammad, does not subtract from the historicity of Christ or the reliability of the New Testament. Keep in mind, Mohammad did not launch the Islamic faith until the early 600s AD, making the accounts of Jesus much earlier. Also, the historical evidence for Christ is only "inferior" to other contemporary figures if one discounts the New Testament Gospels. As I have mentioned in other strings, there is good evidence supporting the reliability of the Gospels. Here's a blurb from Strobel, if you're interested:

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1142

When you say "best and earliest documentary evidence" you are suggesting a comparison, but there are no other documents. The repeating of this meaningless claim would qualify as propaganda.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
While not all of the above mentioned scholars are Christians, the propensity of many Bible critics to dismiss the work of any scholar who professes belief in the Bible, is both sad and senseless. They set aside legitimate research simply because it points to the truth of the Bible. The work of brilliant people like Walter C. Kaiser whose research definitively supports the historicity of the Old Testament, or Daniel B. Wallace whose labors have proved beyond all mathematical doubt the authenticity of the Greek New Testament, are ignored by those who insist that a Christian scholar cannot possibly be numbered among the so called "mainstream".

You state that the term mainstream "describes those who belong to or are characteristic of a principal and widely-accepted group, i.e. those who do not belong to or are characteristic of a marginal group with extreme views." Unfortunately, while the dictionary definition might be the ideal, the actuality is something far less laudable.

In my many years of graduate study, I have discovered that "mainstream" is often little more than a catchword for "my scholars count, and yours don't." Such wild assertions are foolish, baseless, and entirely unintellectual. I believe the Bible, because the evidence supports the Bible. I trust conservative evangelical scholars, because they believe the evidence, and it has led them to the very same conclusion I have drawn. Jesus lives, and He's worthy of our worship.

Biblical Maximalists and other conservative evangelical scholars do not arrive at the conclusion that archaeological evidence supports The Bible, but begin with the conclusion that The Bible is an accurate description of the history of the world, and selectively interpret archaeological evidence to support this conclusion. This can hardly be described as legitimate, and it is for this reason that mainstream archaeologists dismiss their work.

Originally posted by queeq
Bla bla bla... name some names, dude.

Originally posted by queeq
There is no such thing as a "mainstream scholar". They all have their fields and are specialised in that field. To set up an interdiscplinary study on Mediterranean cultures and chonologies (like SCIEM 2000 for instance) one needs a large group of specialists together. And the reality is that people refer for anything outside of their field to others.

Originally posted by queeq
I'll give you a little example. You once said your 'mainstream scholars' all reject a chronological revision of the ancient world. Now ask them why exactly and you will find them referring to an extremely small number of people. If case of shortening Iron Age chronology in fact only one man: Dr. Kenneth Kitchen. And they refer to him because he's the only 'mainstream scholar' who knows this stuff. However, this eminent scholar has been doing that work for over 30 years (see how much work one discipline is?) and is not likely to revise his life's work. It's a great piece of work, but not flawless.

Originally posted by queeq
Ask these people... ask them what they base their conclusions on and you will find they have quite a limited knowlegde and understanding of anything outside their field.

Originally posted by queeq
Someone like Peter James is in fact fairly mainstream these days. He publishes regularly in various scientific magazines (not the popular ones, the ones for scholars) plus, he's working in a large and growing interdisciplinary group of people with a broad scheme of expertise, including quite a number of your so-called 'mainstream scholars'. And these people TALK with each other, they don't just refer to each other. Like most scholars do and never look at teh evidence themselves.

Originally posted by queeq
Who are your mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars . . . ? Name some. Because what you present is very[,] very general and draw[s] [an] extremely broad conclusion . . .

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but I think you've been listening to the wrong sources.

The New Testament is by far the best preserved, best attested work of ancient literature in existence. Comparing the earliest extant manuscripts to the latest, we find no substantive difference whatsoever -- no deviations in even one major doctrine of the Christian faith. Since the New Testament strongly affirms the text of the Old Testament, the bulk of evidence points toward the Bible's historicity and reliability.

The so called "flaws" we find in the 5000+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament amount to little more than typos (of the hand written variety) and bear no impact on meaning. In fact, through the science of textual criticism, it is relatively simple to filter out such glitches and precisely reconstruct the original text.

With the exception of a few fringe liberal scholars, the vast bulk of biblical historians affirm the preservation of the New Testament. And thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now have a significant body of evidence pointing to the authenticity of the Old Testament. While your perspective might make it easier for you to ignore the Bible as irrelevant fiction, your facts are highly dubious.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Philip R. Davies, Heike Friis, Giovanni Garbini, Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson, and Keith Whitelam to name a few.

Minimalists! Guess they're as bad as maximalists.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
They may have individual areas of special concern, but their field is archaeology.

Thatis such a BROAD topic man... EBA, MBA, LBA, IA1, IA2, Persian, Hellenistic, classic - many different time frames, types of arceaeology: stratification, pottery, weaponry, epigraphy etc etc... and then the geogrpahical: Egyptian, Syro-Palestininian, Greek, Assyrian. Babylonia, Hittite, Ethiopian ... thelist goes on and on. No one man can study the complexity of how all these fields. It has to be a group effort and the number of interdisciplanaries is extremely limited. So all most scholars can do is refer to papers they like and that fit their views. Real understanding of stuff outside their field is lacking.

Originally posted by queeq
Thatis such a BROAD topic man... EBA, MBA, LBA, IA1, IA2, Persian, Hellenistic, classic - many different time frames, types of arceaeology: stratification, pottery, weaponry, epigraphy etc etc... and then the geogrpahical: Egyptian, Syro-Palestininian, Greek, Assyrian. Babylonia, Hittite, Ethiopian ... thelist goes on and on. No one man can study the complexity of how all these fields. It has to be a group effort and the number of interdisciplanaries is extremely limited. So all most scholars can do is refer to papers they like and that fit their views. Real understanding of stuff outside their field is lacking.

Just as a range of scientific disciplines, i.e. molecular biology, chemistry, geology, and physics support, refine, and expand upon one another, the same is true of archaeology.

Exactly, so not one person is ane xpert on all these fields.

Besides, people like Thompson and his Copenhagen group of minimalists are NOT mainstream, not by a long shot. There are in size and back-up comparable to chronological revisionists, were it mot that the latter group is gaining more support in the general idea. Israel Finkelstein for instance, VERY mainstream, is also figdeting with chronology (and gets a little less mainstream, but only in view of his views on chronology BEFORE Iron Age 2). But other mainstream archaeologists like Gabriel Barkay and Aidon Dodson (egyptologists) are at least sympathetic to chtrnological revision.
Minimalists remain a fairly steady group that do not gain much support from the big scholars around the world. So there you go: PHAIL!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Biblical Maximalists and other conservative evangelical scholars do not arrive at the conclusion that archaeological evidence supports The Bible, but begin with the conclusion that The Bible is an accurate description of the history of the world, and selectively interpret archaeological evidence to support this conclusion. This can hardly be described as legitimate, and it is for this reason that mainstream archaeologists dismiss their work.

You're generalizing. Not all evangelical scholars invert their method.

The above mentioned Kaiser and Wallace are two whose careful, systematic work has done much to forward linguistic science. Their work is criticized simply because they have concluded from the evidence that there is real scientific support for the Bible. This is something many secular scientists are unwilling to swallow -- which is terribly unscientific of them, if you think about it.

Them Muslims are crazy for thinking that Jesus aint the Messiah (or divine for that matter). Them Christians are also stupid for thinking that Jesus IS the Messiah.

Damm!t the Messiah was supposed to save Israel and strengthen Judaism, instead Jesus caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, to scatter and humiliate the remaining Jews, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God.

Jesus is but a poser.

Nice rant.

Originally posted by Templares
Them Muslims are crazy for thinking that Jesus aint the Messiah (or divine for that matter). Them Christians are also stupid for thinking that Jesus IS the Messiah.

Damm!t the Messiah was supposed to save Israel and strengthen Judaism, instead Jesus caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, to scatter and humiliate the remaining Jews, and to exchange the Torah, and to make the majority of the world err to serve a divinity besides God.

Jesus is but a poser.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
If the god of the bible is all powerful and all knowing and as you say has the power to make man write down his words as he wanted them then that would mean that the Bible is perfect and would stand the test of time and we all know that is not true. It has many flaws and doesn’t stand the test of time and must be view differently and read differently depending on the time.

"...the Bible...has many flaws...."

What flaws?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=586996

I have addressed every (if not all) purported flaws in a number of threads/posts. Click on the above link or click here:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=449986

Do I hear knives sharpening?

Originally posted by queeq
Do I hear knives sharpening?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"...the Bible...has many flaws...."

What flaws?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=586996

I have addressed every (if not all) purported flaws in a number of threads/posts. Click on the above link or click here:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=449986

No knives, just tons of information.

I wasn't talking about you. There's a storm coming.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No knives, just tons of information.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No knives, just tons of information.

For some reason I found this incredible funny.

No idea why.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
For some reason I found this incredible funny.

No idea why.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
maybe cause the crusades were hilarious? you know no violence in the christian religion yet we are gonna go slaughter millions 😄

They weren't really people 😊