Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't go off topic, mate. Deal with the challenges to the claims that you have made or admit that you have no case. We already know it, so it is merely of academic interest as to whether you are big enough to see it yourself.
Tell that to Mircea about the Texas history and Cuban missile crisis.
Let's not forget, the OP is "Did the Exodus really happen?" I don't need to prove it did. You need to prove it didn't.
Wrong. You ignore the evidence. It is a question of assessment of the evidence and THEN you believe or don't.
If that meant anything then nobody could ever be convicted of a crime unless there were witnesses.
AREQUIPA, do you believe it was impossible for God to give enough food and water to the Israelites in the wilderness?
If we look at Jesus feeding the 5,000 in Matthew 14:21 (the number could have been as high as 15,000 or more if you include women and children) on just two fish and and five cakes of bread, why could not God create enough manna?
Of course you may not believe Jesus fed 5,000 on that much food. You may not believe Jesus ever existed. I do and believe the historical account of Jesus feeding them is pertinent to the exodus historical account.
Also in 2 Kings 4 Elisha tells the poor woman to go to her neighbors and get all the empty vessels she can. From her small amount of oil he filled up all the vessels she brought. When she ran out of vessels the oil stopped. Three is something here in the physics of these events which we are not aware of. God can obviously multiply the very atoms.
I'm not saying this proves the exodus happened. It is just a question relating to it.
.
Try to prove a person guilty in a true court of law without
a real witness and it will never happen.
.
bumpus, I appreciate you helping out and giving your thoughts. Don't mean to give ammo to those who disagree with us but . . . people are convicted without witnesses on circumstantial evidence.
bumpus, I appreciate you helping out and giving your thoughts. Don't mean to give ammo to those who disagree with us but . . . people are convicted without witnesses on circumstantial evidence.
It is nice to see your faith is strong.
Maybe you did not understand what I ment when I said ... "true court of law"
When people are wrongfully convicted without any true real witnesses,
and are found guilty only on ( circumstantial evidence )
( or some say that sounds good enough for me ) that is not a real court ! ! !
That is what many people call a ... Dishonest Crooked Kangaroo Court.
.
He was correct concerning the exodus but I doubt he would have said the divinity of Jesus was a pagan idea.
I also doubt he would say that Peter did not recognize the divinity of Jesus of Nazarus since the internal evidence of the "gospels" confirms Peter admitting to Jesus being "the Christ, the Son of the living God." To me, that is the divinity of Jesus. Now it is possible that the Naked Archaeologist had a different idea as to what the divinity of Jesus was. He needs to define his terms.
Paul met Jesus and knew Jesus. I don't know why you say he didn't.
I recommend you watch these three videos then. These are excerpts from the two Naked Archaeologist episodes. If you get a chance to watch the full episodes, do so. They were on just this past weekend.
He said the Pauline Christians emphasized the supernatural divinity of Jesus (then a blurb came up and said "Jesus as God") "but did not accept the Judeo-Christian belief that Jesus was a mortal man, a Messiah but not a God."
That may have been the case when Constantine came along hundreds of years later, but Paul was very definitely monotheistic and believed Jesus' God was the Father.
Paul taught: "1Co_8:6 nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is, and we for Him,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him."
For Paul, God was the source of all and Jesus Christ the channel.
Tell that to Mircea about the Texas history and Cuban missile crisis.
Let's not forget, the OP is "Did the Exodus really happen?" I don't need to prove it did. You need to prove it didn't.
I agree. At least I see (in view of the existence of a single written account which in SOME form could have actually occurred) the burden of proof being on me to give a few good reasons to argue that it didn't happen. At the risk of repeating myself I have given some reasons - the chronological impossibilities are the main ones and the Egyptian occupation of the Sinai back in the Middle and New kingdoms with the archaeological indication of an on- site Jewish emergence are back up. The lack of any written references to the exodus other than the Bible one means no more than that you have no counter - case .
and let's pick up this bit of irrelevance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
AREQUIPA, do you believe it was impossible for God to give enough food and water to the Israelites in the wilderness?
Miracles in themselves are NOT reason to say that something didn't happen. There are miracles enough in Greek and Roman histories and even the Angels of Mons nonsense. That doesn't mean that the events didn't happen. No. Impossibility of miracles has never been my argument, though they don't help credibility any. It is the workability of the story itself and any telling contradictions that discredit the stories and you ought to know my methods, though I doubt that you would be inclined to apply them.
I agree. At least I see (in view of the existence of a single written account which in SOME form could have actually occurred) the burden of proof being on me to give a few good reasons to argue that it didn't happen. At the risk of repeating myself I have given some reasons - the chronological impossibilities are the main ones and the Egyptian occupation of the Sinai back in the Middle and New kingdoms with the archaeological indication of an on- site Jewish emergence are back up. The lack of any written references to the exodus other than the Bible one means no more than that you have no counter - case .
Velikovski found source material of extra-biblical nature concerning the exodus.
"Velikovsky searched for common mention of events within literary records, and in the Ipuwer papyrus he
believed he had found a contemporary Egyptian account of the Plagues of Egypt. Moreover, he interpreted
both accounts as descriptions of a great natural catastrophe. Velikovsky attempted to investigate the
physical cause of these events, and extrapolated backwards and forwards in history from this point, cross-
comparing written and mythical records from cultures on every inhabited continent, using them to attempt
synchronisms of the historical records, yielding what he believed to be further periodic natural catastrophes
that can be global in scale.[citation needed]" Immanuel Velikovsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course anyone can say he was wrong.
I personally don't need to attribute celestial events such as planetary issues as he describes to cause the events in the Old Testament.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have given some reasons - the chronological impossibilities are the main ones and the Egyptian occupation of the Sinai back in the Middle and New kingdoms with the archaeological indication of an on- site Jewish emergence are back up. The lack of any written references to the exodus other than the Bible one means no more than that you have no counter - case 
.
