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.
The greek word--STAUROS-- an upright pole or stake---- found in trinity translations as-cross.
The upright pole is called the crux simplex. Historians seem to accept that it was likely the tau cross that was used. JW's consider the crux simplex to be the one used. I suppose it's possible but then the body used to form the image on the shroud was crucified on the cross beam type (assuming a real crucified body was used to create the image - which does seem likely).
The Bible is a collection of books of historical nature. The Book is true until proven false.
Caca! With that logic (or rather lack of logic) we might as well say that, as the 'Odyssey' helped Schlieman to find the ruins of Troy, we need to accept that Polyphemus tried to sink ships by throwing stones at them. Your argument is worse than ludicrous.
His image with mankind is that of subjectorhood. Right after God said Adam was made in His image He told Adam concerning subjecting the animals.
subjectorhood isn't good. Equality is. Image is supposed to mean "likeness of equality". In such Abrahamic mythology, Absolute Power must indeed corrupt absolutely.
Caca! With that logic (or rather lack of logic) we might as well say that, as the 'Odyssey' helped Schlieman to find the ruins of Troy, we need to accept that Polyphemus tried to sink ships by throwing stones at them. Your argument is worse than ludicrous.
Caca! With that logic (or rather lack of logic) we might as well say that, as the 'Odyssey' helped Schlieman to find the ruins of Troy, we need to accept that Polyphemus tried to sink ships by throwing stones at them. Your argument is worse than ludicrous.
And with your logic, King Nebuchadnezzar never really existed. He was just a product of someone's imagination and the authors of the Bible snuck into Babylon high court to get some good juicy details and wovened that character into their own false narrative.
The Bible hits every single factor for verifying ancient history. Archaelogy backs it up, and it aligns well with other texts when the Hebrew culture intersects with others.
And with your logic, King Nebuchadnezzar never really existed. He was just a product of someone's imagination and the authors of the Bible snuck into Babylon high court to get some good juicy details and wovened that character into their own false narrative.
Nope. You have it wrong...yet again. No surprise there then! Numerous posters, including myself, have told you on numerous occasions that the inclusion of factual characters or places in a story do not mean that the story is true. Authors do it all the time! I really don't see why you don't get that simple fact...other than, to 'get it' would destroy your belief in mythology and therefore you would rather avoid it.
Quote:
The Bible hits every single factor for verifying ancient history.
Only if you ignore the mention of 'history' that didn't occur...which of course you and your ilk do on a daily basis. When you highlight the parts that support your agenda and ignore the parts that destroy it, you are only fooling yourself my old cabbage!
Quote:
Archaelogy backs it up....
Only if you ignore the archaeology that shows it to be untrue...which of course you and your ilk do on a daily basis.
And with your logic, King Nebuchadnezzar never really existed. He was just a product of someone's imagination and the authors of the Bible snuck into Babylon high court to get some good juicy details and wovened that character into their own false narrative.
The Bible hits every single factor for verifying ancient history. Archaelogy backs it up, and it aligns well with other texts when the Hebrew culture intersects with others.
Nope. You have it wrong...yet again. No surprise there then! Numerous posters, including myself, have told you on numerous occasions that the inclusion of factual characters or places in a story do not mean that the story is true. Authors do it all the time! I really don't see why you don't get that simple fact...other than, to 'get it' would destroy your belief in mythology and therefore you would rather avoid it.
And no surprise that you must disagree with EVERY single sentence I write. Have you ever once agreed with any Christian? Would love to see that. All you are doing here is showing me that such a high degree of skepticism makes it impossible to prove that ANY history is valid in that time period. You could simply make the same claim for Egyptian records, Babylonian etc... The point that authors do it all the time is irrelevant. The onus is on you to prove that authors in that time period did it all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Only if you ignore the mention of 'history' that didn't occur...which of course you and your ilk do on a daily basis. When you highlight the parts that support your agenda and ignore the parts that destroy it, you are only fooling yourself my old cabbage!
Only if you ignore the archaeology that shows it to be untrue...which of course you and your ilk do on a daily basis.
Then prove it. Show me archaeology that disproves the Bible.
If you are going to use the Spiderman fallacy (which you will of course because the root here is just plain hatred for God's Word) then the equivalent would be like this:
1. A thousand years from now, people are now questioning if Spiderman really existed. Thousands of people over generations have claimed that he was real.
2. No records exist anywhere to prove that the books of Spiderman were works of fiction.
3. Countless archaeology finds have been uncovered about Spiderman. A plague with the key to the city given to Spiderman. Other books and personal diaries from people who had encounters with Spiderman.
4. The books of Spiderman all describe events and places in detail that completely fit that time period.
5. Medical records and family history tree records of the Parker family have been uncovered as well
Now with all those factors in play, it would be a logical reason for the people in the future to conclude that Spiderman really was a person. Of course, we know this is not true because there is very strong evidence that Stan Lee made him up out of his own imagination. OTOH, You have ZERO nilch nada evidence the the Biblical authors just made it up.
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.
