Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

@Bucky Ball starts threads about penis

[Minimalist]

Um..... no.

Despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists — and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts — over the years, credible direct archaeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found.

While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomads generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologists have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert.

So if there were archaeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical "600,000 men on foot, besides children" plus "a mixed crowd...and live stock in great numbers" (Exod. 12:37-38) who wandered for forty years in the desert.

Prof. Eric Cline - Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction

Now there are assholes around here  who would claim that this, too, is an argument from "silence."  But that is what you would expect from assholes.

[Free]

why do you want to shut down this topic?
isn't that a little arrogant you stupid fuck?

Wrong fool. The topic is not going to shut down, fucking idiot. 
You NEVER actually contribute anything. 
You ask questions and do NO actual research. You can't even google something. 
You think you deserve to be spoon-fed like an infant who can't even bother to find anything out for yourself. 
It's your MO. It's what you've been doing here since you came here.

I have had that fucker on ignore for 5 or 6 months now. He's a fucking troll.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

well @Free you criteria for history is well.... lame

[Bucky Ball]

You ask questions and do NO actual research. You can't even google something. 

To be honest, though, with Google one has to wade through a great deal of biased nonsense.
At least here on the forum, one can get a direct answer from those who know about the subject.

There are quite a number of good books on the subjects he wants to be spoon fed on. 
He didn't even cite one. He's a lazy ass, and thinks others are stupid enough to play his stupid game. 

Oh by the way, "I might be dying next week". Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

[Free]

Um..... no.

Despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists — and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts — over the years, credible direct archaeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found.

While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomads generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologists have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert.

So if there were archaeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical "600,000 men on foot, besides children" plus "a mixed crowd...and live stock in great numbers" (Exod. 12:37-38) who wandered for forty years in the desert.

Prof. Eric Cline - Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction

Now there are assholes around here  who would claim that this, too, is an argument from "silence."  But that is what you would expect from assholes.

Your problem is you do not understand how to validate an argument from silence. Nor do you understand that when it cannot be validated, it's fallacious.

For example, to expect somebody within the first 150 years of the purported crucifixion of Jesus to say something to the effect that Jesus was a wholesale myth is a valid argument from silence against the claim that he was a myth, especially when we have dissenters such as Celsum, or the character of Trypho speaking out against Christianity and who had every opportunity to say that he was a myth, but rather they spoke of him in derogatory terms as a man who actually existed and was crucified.

Learn something ffs.

[Bucky Ball]

Um..... no.

Despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists — and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts — over the years, credible direct archaeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found.

While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomads generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologists have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert.

So if there were archaeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical "600,000 men on foot, besides children" plus "a mixed crowd...and live stock in great numbers" (Exod. 12:37-38) who wandered for forty years in the desert.

Prof. Eric Cline - Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction

Now there are assholes around here  who would claim that this, too, is an argument from "silence."  But that is what you would expect from assholes.

Your problem is you do not understand how to validate an argument from silence. Nor do you understand that when it cannot be validated, it's fallacious.

For example, to expect somebody within the first 150 years of the purported crucifixion of Jesus to say something to the effect that Jesus was a wholesale myth is a valid argument from silence against the claim that he was a myth, especially when we have dissenters such as Celsum, or the character of Trypho speaking out against Christianity and who had every opportunity to say that he was a myth, but rather they spoke of him in derogatory terms as a man who actually existed and was crucified.

Learn something ffs.

Um, Trypho was an invented character by Justin Martyr. The ONLY opportunity he had had to say anything was what Justin let him say.
Justin was about to let him say Jesus never existed. That's not what could be used as an argument from silence.

[Free]

Um..... no.


Now there are assholes around here  who would claim that this, too, is an argument from "silence."  But that is what you would expect from assholes.

Your problem is you do not understand how to validate an argument from silence. Nor do you understand that when it cannot be validated, it's fallacious.

For example, to expect somebody within the first 150 years of the purported crucifixion of Jesus to say something to the effect that Jesus was a wholesale myth is a valid argument from silence against the claim that he was a myth, especially when we have dissenters such as Celsum, or the character of Trypho speaking out against Christianity and who had every opportunity to say that he was a myth, but rather they spoke of him in derogatory terms as a man who actually existed and was crucified.

Learn something ffs.

Um, Trypho was an invented character by Justin Martyr. The ONLY opportunity he had had to say anything was what Justin let him say.
Justin was about to let him say Jesus never existed. That's not what could be used as an argument from silence.

Hence why I specifically said ...

" ...or the character of Trypho speaking out against Christianity ..."

Considering what Justin had Trypho say, it would seem to me that Justin was echoing the sentiments of contra Christians.

[Bucky Ball]

Your problem is you do not understand how to validate an argument from silence. Nor do you understand that when it cannot be validated, it's fallacious.

For example, to expect somebody within the first 150 years of the purported crucifixion of Jesus to say something to the effect that Jesus was a wholesale myth is a valid argument from silence against the claim that he was a myth, especially when we have dissenters such as Celsum, or the character of Trypho speaking out against Christianity and who had every opportunity to say that he was a myth, but rather they spoke of him in derogatory terms as a man who actually existed and was crucified.

Learn something ffs.

Um, Trypho was an invented character by Justin Martyr. The ONLY opportunity he had had to say anything was what Justin let him say.
Justin was about to let him say Jesus never existed. That's not what could be used as an argument from silence.

Hence why I specifically said ...

" ...or the character of Trypho speaking out against Christianity ..."

Considering what Justin had Trypho say, it would seem to me that Justin was echoing the sentiments of contra Christians.

Justin was doing ONLY what he thought would help his cause. 
Having Trypho introduce the possibility that their hero was a total myth would be a step too far. 
One would never expect him to have Trypho say that.

[Free]

Um, Trypho was an invented character by Justin Martyr. The ONLY opportunity he had had to say anything was what Justin let him say.
Justin was about to let him say Jesus never existed. That's not what could be used as an argument from silence.

Hence why I specifically said ...

" ...or the character of Trypho speaking out against Christianity ..."

Considering what Justin had Trypho say, it would seem to me that Justin was echoing the sentiments of contra Christians.

Justin was doing ONLY what he thought would help his cause. 
Having Trypho introduce the possibility that their hero was a total myth would be a step too far. 
One would never expect him to have Trypho say that.

That may be a fair analysis, but considering the other negative sentiments Justin expressed through Trypho I wouldn't take it off the table.

[Phaedrus]

Explains all the nonsense on your table.

[Minimalist]

Now there are assholes around here  who would claim that this, too, is an argument from "silence."  But that is what you would expect from assholes.

Your problem is you do not understand how to validate an argument from silence

When I said there are "assholes around here" I had you in mind.  Thanks for not disappointing me!

And you don't know shit about much of anything.  Go read your fucking bible.

[mordant]

Um..... no.

Despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists — and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts — over the years, credible direct archaeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found.

While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomads generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologists have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert.

So if there were archaeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical "600,000 men on foot, besides children" plus "a mixed crowd...and live stock in great numbers" (Exod. 12:37-38) who wandered for forty years in the desert.

Prof. Eric Cline - Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction

Now there are assholes around here  who would claim that this, too, is an argument from "silence."  But that is what you would expect from assholes.

It is not just the lack of evidence for the Exodus itself but the lack of evidence for the captivity that gave rise to it. It might be hard to find artifacts from the wanderers, even if they were allegedly numerous and spent a couple of generations going around in circles in the same area. But it would not be nearly as hard to find Egyptian documents about something as significant as a huge free labor force for hundreds of years, or mention of a guy named Joseph who had reached such high office prior to that. Or mention of Moses, a high-ranking prince who led an insurrection against the state. You know, minor little things like that.

And then there's the tiny little matter of the whole Egyptian army being wiped out to a man in the attempt to pursue the fleeing Israelites. Granted, regimes tend not to lead in their official histories with their most ignominious defeats, but still ... NO mention of this, the inevitable recriminations and political consequences? No gloating by their enemies? NOTHING?

No one can even finger which Pharaoh was the one mentioned in the Biblical account. None of them fit.

[Minimalist]

It is not just the lack of evidence for the Exodus itself but the lack of evidence for the captivity that gave rise to it.

To add to your list, what about the lack of any reference to wholesale slavery in Egypt?

What about the fact that the religitards generally use two dates for their bullshit.  One, by using the 480 years after the Exodus to build the temple which (1 Kin  6:1) pushes the date back to 1,446 BC or dead center of the reign of Thutmosis III who was the single greatest empire builder in Egyptian history!  He certainly did not rule over a kingdom which was laid low by some stupid fucking god and his gang of "slaves."

Then there is the group which ignores all that shit and insists that Ramses II was the pharaoh of the exodus.  The trouble with that is that you then have to throw all the bible bullshit out the window which makes the literalists decidedly uncomfortable.   Ramses II having ruled for most of the 13th century BC so the dates don't work.  If you subtract 480 from the mid-point of Ramses reign you end up around 730 BC and that doesn't work so well either. 

So the story is bullshit and they are pretty well screwed either way.

[Bucky Ball]

Um..... no.

Despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists — and an even larger number of amateur enthusiasts — over the years, credible direct archaeological evidence for the Exodus has yet to be found.

While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomads generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologists have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert.

So if there were archaeological remains to be found from the Exodus, one would have expected them to be found by now. And yet, thus far there is no trace of the biblical "600,000 men on foot, besides children" plus "a mixed crowd...and live stock in great numbers" (Exod. 12:37-38) who wandered for forty years in the desert.

Prof. Eric Cline - Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction

Now there are assholes around here  who would claim that this, too, is an argument from "silence."  But that is what you would expect from assholes.

It is not just the lack of evidence for the Exodus itself but the lack of evidence for the captivity that gave rise to it. It might be hard to find artifacts from the wanderers, even if they were allegedly numerous and spent a couple of generations going around in circles in the same area. But it would not be nearly as hard to find Egyptian documents about something as significant as a huge free labor force for hundreds of years, or mention of a guy named Joseph who had reached such high office prior to that. Or mention of Moses, a high-ranking prince who led an insurrection against the state. You know, minor little things like that.

And then there's the tiny little matter of the whole Egyptian army being wiped out to a man in the attempt to pursue the fleeing Israelites. Granted, regimes tend not to lead in their official histories with their most ignominious defeats, but still ... NO mention of this, the inevitable recriminations and political consequences? No gloating by their enemies? NOTHING?

No one can even finger which Pharaoh was the one mentioned in the Biblical account. None of them fit.

The Egyptians controlled the entire Near East at the time of the purported "exodus". Not just Egypt. They actually had "garrison out-posts"  
all over and also in what became Israel. There are communications back and forth between the garrisons and their military superiors in Egypt. They still exist. The notion that a very large group of Semites at any point left one place Egypt controlled, to go to another place they controlled, ... is absurd, (as well as historically false). The exit of such a huge labor force would have ruined the Egyptian economy and there would be records of it. There are not.

There are records of how the major Egyptian building projects were done, and they were not constructed with slavery. What the reference in Exodus to the "minim" actually refers to, is NOT "slavery" in Egypt but is a later literary reference to the fact that in Hebrew mythology, and possibly history, Solomon required a month of time, annually for his building projects, and in the stories of how and why  the two kingdoms split, it was Jeroboam's re-institution of Solomon's mandatory policy of the hated "missim" (one month of forced labor IN ISRAEL) that was a source of hatred for the idea. In the Book of Exodus, the Egyptian supervisors were named as "officers of the missim". The Bible was (later) slamming the (hated) concept of one portion of its OWN culture, not the Egyptians, (just like the slamming of the "golden bull" idol when Moses comes down with the 10 commandments was slamming the traditions of the Northern tribes which had used a golden bull ( 2 actually) as the symbol (young virile bull symbol) as the presence of their deity, in the place of the golden sphinxes which the South used on the cover of the Arc of the covenant.)

[Free]

Now there are assholes around here  who would claim that this, too, is an argument from "silence."  But that is what you would expect from assholes.

Your problem is you do not understand how to validate an argument from silence

When I said there are "assholes around here" I had you in mind.  Thanks for not disappointing me!

And you don't know shit about much of anything.  Go read your fucking bible.

None of this excuses the fact that you don't even know when you are are using fallacious reasoning.

[Free]

Explains all the nonsense on your table.

But what it doesn't explain is how the fuck your reasoning skills completely deteriorate on this subject.

[Chas]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah unimportant blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah essentially meaningless blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah hidden assumptions blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah silly insults blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah other horseshit blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Cavebear]

[Cavebear]

[Cavebear]

My general understanding, after reading Archaeology Scientific American and National Geographic, watching Science shows, and reading science articles in The Washington Post for about 40 years is that:

1. The Israelites were never slaves in Egypt building the Pyramids
2. The Pyramid builders were all local experts working for food and shelter
3. Early Israeli artifacts show no influence from Egyptian pottery
4. But do show influence from Eastern cultures
5. The Egyptians only mentioned "Israelite" briefly on one stele as a nomadic tribe among many at the edge of their empire

There is probably more, but it's not my major focus in life.

[Cavebear]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah unimportant blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah essentially meaningless blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah hidden assumptions blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah silly insults blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah other horseshit blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Cavebear]

That was impressive. I liked the way you hid a few other statements in among the "blahs". I didn't catch that at the first viewing...

[Minimalist]

Now there are assholes around here  who would claim that this, too, is an argument from "silence."  But that is what you would expect from assholes.

Your problem is you do not understand how to validate an argument from silence

When I said there are "assholes around here" I had you in mind.  Thanks for not disappointing me!

And you don't know shit about much of anything.  Go read your fucking bible.

None of this excuses the fact that you don't even know when you are are using fallacious reasoning.

Someday you may learn that I do not give a flying fuck what a moron like you has to say.

Go give jesus a blow job, sonny.

[Cavebear]

When I said there are "assholes around here" I had you in mind.  Thanks for not disappointing me!

And you don't know shit about much of anything.  Go read your fucking bible.

None of this excuses the fact that you don't even know when you are are using fallacious reasoning.

Someday you may learn that I do not give a flying fuck what a moron like you has to say.

Go give jesus a blow job, sonny.

Do you ever engage in rational discussion?  Just curious.