To All Orthodox Christians, 'Christ Has Risen'

How much did the Oil cost? 'Holy oil' is simply oil supposedly blessed. 'Holy water' ditto. Sorry. Everything so far is down to your belief. The body is a miracle in itself. I've had 4 children and a sprained ankle can heal overnight. Opening eyes after a stroke is not unusual though the vision itself can be affected. And at sometime most people with pneumonia start to improve.

Not sure why your baby would need a transfusion. Medication usually suffices until the child is older, and in one type (heart defect), can be operated upon.

Still. If you are happy to believe in 'miracles' that's up to you. All Christian religions are based on misinterpreted OT scripture passages, and then Judaism is based on earlier religious beliefs and myths.

Good luck.

 

Fact, the Gospel of Mark which is the oldest Gospel, does not includes the resurrection of Jesus.

hmmm...

 

Around 4000 years ago in the Autumn time in Mesopotamia a group of people stood and watched the sun (their god) sink beneath the horizon and enter the underworld. Around 6 months later the same group stood around as the sun (sun god) arose above the horizon from the underworld. The cry went up 'he is risen'. Fact.
Nothing changes.

 

One can only judge another's motives by their own, and since you don't believe in Christ and His Redemptive power through Grace, and that the Church is an extension of Christ's Redemptive Grace, you have to believe the worse. This doesn't mean it's true though - because it's not.

 

Whether someone wants to believe in the Resurrection or not is up to them, but it is the basis of Christianity.

 

Trevor2539 - I'm going to go into something that's very deep and spiritual, and I don't want anyone to think that I'm proselytizing, because I believe that God tries to reach everyone in a way they can understand and are comfortable with. As for you, you can believe it or not.

In the Orthodox and Catholic faith a glorified or canonized Saint is basically the same as the prophets in the Old Testament. They have managed through an inner perfection, to be able to live in two realms at the same time; the worldly one and the spiritual one. In these past decades in Greece, there have been many saints - and some very exceptional ones that have been given amazing charisms from God.

We are personally close to a nun who was attending Harvard University when she decided to convert to the Greek Orthodox faith. She was being edified to the faith by a monk from Greece. When she went home to Kansas City, she attended a dance at the Hyatt Regency in the 80's when the bridges collapsed. On one side of her all the people were killed, and on the other side they were able to get them out from under the rubble. She was stuck. No one could get her out, so they left her while they attended to the others.

Suddenly a man reached in, took her arm and with a slight twist pulled her out. He comforted her for a while and told her that he loved her, and when the doctors and attendants came, he disappeared. She couldn't find him anywhere, and assumed he was her guardian angel. After some time she saw a picture on a wall of the man who pulled her out. He turned out to be the Elder Aemilianos who was the spiritual father of the monk who was teaching her about the faith.

But the future Saint Aemilianos never left Greece, yet he was in Kansas City pulling her out of the rubble. This charism of being able to be in two places at the same time is known as 'bi-location', and there are other Greek Saints with this charism. The most famous one though would be the Italian Catholic Saint; Padre Pio.

She became a nun and with some other American nuns went to Greece and restored about 16 monasteries. She is now the Mother Superior of a monastery in Maryland. I think she's a saint, because her sufferings from the accident was immense. Only Saints suffer that much. She was having one operation after another - and yet through it all, she was able to accomplish so much. Lately she even went through chemotherapy.

 

https://probe.org/why-does-marks-gospel-omit-the-resurrection-and-the-virgin-birth/

 

It's an interesting story and you must believe what you want. .

I've known many saints in my time and they are ordinary people. They never sought or wanted recognition, nor claim to have done miracles. But they have. They've helped the needy, cheered the sad ,comforted the sorrowing, bound up the wounds of others. . I don't believe in heaven but if anyone is there, it is these people. Sainthood is a Church doctrine, not a Biblical one. There's no proof that miracles happen, except in the human sense.

As to prophets? in the Tanakh. Most of them were astute men who read the events around them and warned of the results of various actions. They were often ignored, and disaster followed. There has always been men in History able to do this.

• For your information I spent the early part of my life as a committed Christian, leading, teaching, preaching and studying the Bible. In studying the Bible I also studied ancient culture, history, Judaism upon which the Bible is written. The Bible you read is nothing like the Bible I understand. The Christian teaching regarding the birth of Jesus is merely the misuse of OT scriptures. The Nativity stories contradict each other, are against the Jewish and Roman laws of the time. There was no need for Joseph to go to Bethlehem. In fact it was against Roman Law. Because he was of the line of David is nonsense. David had been dead 1000 years. Bethlehem had been through much and many of its people exiled. Joseph had no property there for the Romans to tax. Anyway, there would have been no reason for Mary to have gone. Any woman close to childbirth or with an unweaned child was relieved of the need to travel. Jesus was simply a Jewish preacher.

I leave it there. I am now agnostic.

 

Jesus predicted cases like you in the parable of the Sower, only a fourth of the seeds sprouted to full Christian maturity. "Narrow is the road to life, and broad the road to destruction."

 

You don't forget God for anything like the same reason you forget where your wallet is, and nobody ever wasted his whole life avoiding the recovery of his wallet like the plague.

lol

Didn't bother with the link, but Mark does not omit the Resurrection. You know that, right?

 

Jesus predicted many things. In this case he was talking to his own people and referring to the Jews - using Jeremiah 5:20-21. Another case of Christianity interpreting for their own purposes. Jesus only spoke to the Jews except when approached by a gentile. I don't see him mentioning 'full Christian Maturity'. That's Christianity's interpretation There is no evidence that Jesus was anything but a Jewish preacher who fell foul of the Jewish religious hierarchy exposing their hypocrisy.. For which he suffered death. By the way it's 'the parable of the Soils'.

 

Nonsense, He was killed for claiming to be God. I would expect a 'failed seed' to so grossly misinterpret that passage.

 

And I would expect someone who didn't understand Jewish theology to misinterpret it. That's the Christian viewpoint. Jesus, a devout Jew, would never have claimed to be Jahweh's only son. A son of Jahweh yes as most Jews believe.. Most of the nativity stories and crucifixion stories go against Jewish law and ritual., They were written decades after the event by people who were not there but wanted to make Jesus divine. Different versions of the Nativity story and the crucifixion story. One says it is the Passover Supper - and that's impossible given the story as written. The other says it was a meal - almost certainly right. During Passover week there were 3 Shabbats (Sundays) 2 normal on the correct day, the other varying depending on the year etc. Unfortunately we don't know which year or what day. It works the same way as Easter does for Christians. It is variable. If we knew what year Jesus died we might be able to find Passover day. To do this we need to know the year Jesus was born - and we don't. It was somewhere around BCE7-5. And if he lived and preached he would have been 30 years (Jewish Prime of life. Also the age when priests started their priesthood. 30 was an important year for Jewish life) when he started. 3 years ministry would give us his death in 26-28 CE. Christianity has always had it at AD 33. . We don't know therefore can't tell when the Passover was that year.

Christianity has grossly misinterpreted much of the OT. I've been through the Nativity stories time and again and have yet to receive a sensible explanation for the misinterpretation of Jewish scriptures. Jesus could not have been in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time. That's impossible. But Matthew and Luke disagree. There was no 'Massacre of the Innocents'.

If Jesus followed the 'prophecy' of Hosea 11 - which specifically states ISRAEL, and goes on to describe Israel's failures, then Jesus must have committed the same sins as Israel. To take one verse out of context is to be dishonest. Once you do that the whole Bible is discredited. This is what Christianity has done.

You may not like it - but it is a fact. Many Christians and Bible students are looking at the OT in a different light. If you can't do that then you are simply being dishonest. Neither Jesus or Christianity is found in the OT. Paul adapted the OT, used the story of Jesus and added Greek philosophy to convert the Greeks and create Christianity. He used Greek philosophy time and again and you can see it in his ministry.

There are so many things that go against Bible stories as they are written. Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem Ephratah? David had been dead 1000 years and Joseph had no property there - 3 days walk from his home and business premises in Nazareth. Mary did not have to go anywhere with Joseph if she was pregnant or had an unweaned child. .

Psalm 22 is a summary of David's life, regrets and affliction by family, friends and enemies. There is no Isaiah 53 so lovingly quoted by Christians. The whole book is one complete book about Israel. There were no chapters at all until a millennia plus after it was written. 'Daniel' as written did not exist. A Daniel appears in the Bible, but the book was about a Jewish hero and the story is full of cultural, historic errors. That's why the Jews do not count the book among the prophets, but class him as a visionary. And if you study the Macedonian period it is covered in the second part of Daniel. It's a history lesson - not a prophecy.

There are things you take for granted, but are merely Christian teaching. Do you really believe that Jesus - or Simon of Cyrene - actually carried a cross to Calvary? Do you believe the cross was the shape you see on church altars?

 

If He was divine He would. The idea of the Trinity is found as early as Genesis, where God said, "Let US make man in Our image."

A lot of things went against Jewish law and ritual, this is the New Covenant predicted in the OT. See https://www.ligonier.org/blog/new-covenant-unfolding-biblical-eschatology/

,

A remarkably short time by ancient historical standards, and with a time gap of less than a century between when it was written and the dates of the earliest fragments we have. Herodotus' History was written 1,350 years before our earliest copies, Caesar's Gallic Wars 1,000 years. We have fragments of the NT from 114AD, entire books from 200AD, most of the NT from 250AD, and the complete NT from 325AD.

Not true, the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who interviewed eyewitnesses.

Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Why would they knowingly die for a lie? Why not make themselves the hero of the story? Why make themselves so often look like fools? Who gained from that?

What we see in the Gospel accounts are the same as we see in court testimony today from eyewitnesses, disagreement on the small things but agreement on the big picture. Although a different account doesn't have to be a contradiction. No two witnesses of Lincoln's killing had the exact same details, same with the Titanic sinking, some said it sunk whole, others that it broke in two. It doesn't mean Lincoln wasn't killed at Ford's Theater or that the Titanic didn't sink.

Explained here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html

And you know that how? An argument from silence isn't a good one. The number of infants killed may have been about a dozen, not much of a story in an age of high infant mortality.

Hosea 11 isn't a Messianic prophecy, it is a pictorial prophecy. https://www.gotquestions.org/Hosea-11-1-Messianic.html

Nonsense, as Augustine said, "The OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed."

I have no idea what you're talking about, but why would Paul do that? As he said when listing all the hardships he had received for the Gospel, he would be the most miserable of men if it were not true.

Explained here: https://carm.org/would-joseph-really-have-had-to-travel-to-bethlehem-for-a-census

Only in part. See https://www.ligonier.org/blog/suffering-and-glory-psalm-22/

If it doesn't refer to Jesus, how could Israel save itself from it's own sins? The suffering servant was described as sinless, yet OT Israel was in a constant cycle of apostasy, to the point where God compared them to an adulteress. Many Jewish teachers used to teach it referred to the Messiah. The late Dr. D. James Kennedy once read Is. 53 to a Jewish man and asked him who it referred to. He replied, "Jesus, of course" and was shocked to see it was from his own scriptures.

The Dead Sea scrolls showed us that pre Christ copies of the OT are pretty similar to what we have today.

Of course. Rome's greatest historian, Cornelius Tacitus, wrote that Jesus was crucified.

I don't think it matters, the point is God became man in the form of Jesus Christ, who died on a cross for our sins.

Just curious, did you ever have a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ?

 

A lot of things went against Jewish law and ritual, this is the New Covenant predicted in the OT. See https://www.ligonier.org/blog/new-covenant-unfolding-biblical-eschatology/

,

A remarkably short time by ancient historical standards, and with a time gap of less than a century between when it was written and the dates of the earliest fragments we have. Herodotus' History was written 1,350 years before our earliest copies, Caesar's Gallic Wars 1,000 years. We have fragments of the NT from 114AD, entire books from 200AD, most of the NT from 250AD, and the complete NT from 325AD.



Not true, the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who interviewed eyewitnesses.

Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.



Why would they knowingly die for a lie? Why not make themselves the hero of the story? Why make themselves so often look like fools? Who gained from that?



What we see in the Gospel accounts are the same as we see in court testimony today from eyewitnesses, disagreement on the small things but agreement on the big picture. Although a different account doesn't have to be a contradiction. No two witnesses of Lincoln's killing had the exact same details, same with the Titanic sinking, some said it sunk whole, others that it broke in two. It doesn't mean Lincoln wasn't killed at Ford's Theater or that the Titanic didn't sink.



Explained here: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html



And you know that how? An argument from silence isn't a good one. The number of infants killed may have been about a dozen, not much of a story in an age of high infant mortality.



Hosea 11 isn't a Messianic prophecy, it is a pictorial prophecy. https://www.gotquestions.org/Hosea-11-1-Messianic.html



Nonsense, as Augustine said, "The OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed."



I have no idea what you're talking about, but why would Paul do that? As he said when listing all the hardships he had received for the Gospel, he would be the most miserable of men if it were not true.



Explained here: https://carm.org/would-joseph-really-have-had-to-travel-to-bethlehem-for-a-census



Only in part. See https://www.ligonier.org/blog/suffering-and-glory-psalm-22/



If it doesn't refer to Jesus, how could Israel save itself from it's own sins? The suffering servant was described as sinless, yet OT Israel was in a constant cycle of apostasy, to the point where God compared them to an adulteress. Many Jewish teachers used to teach it referred to the Messiah. The late Dr. D. James Kennedy once read Is. 53 to a Jewish man and asked him who it referred to. He replied, "Jesus, of course" and was shocked to see it was from his own scriptures.



The Dead Sea scrolls showed us that pre Christ copies of the OT are pretty similar to what we have today.



Of course. Rome's greatest historian, Cornelius Tacitus, wrote that Jesus was crucified.



I don't think it matters, the point is God became man in the form of Jesus Christ, who died on a cross for our sins.

Just curious, did you ever have a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ?[/QUOTE]

Genesis is simply a story. Most of it is simply dredged up mythical stories.

Decades are a fair time for people who were NOT eyewitness. Second hand witness is not accepted in courts. The old phrase of handed down knowledge?
Luke makes a mistake even in Acts which Paul has to correct him in Galations. He was a great historian, the rest is bias toward Paul. Note how he carefully does not aggravate the Romans, like Paul.

Don't bother with GotQuestions. Simply Christian doctrine. I've had dealings with them before. They simply ignore Judaism and Jewish ritual of the time. Either you accept Matthews story of Jesus in Egypt or you accept Lukes return to Nazareth after Mary's purification. 40 days. Luke is quite clear that Jesus remained their with his parents until he grew up. . No visit to Egypt.

Killing of Jewish Children in such a way would have had the Jews up in uproar. For heavens sake read up about the Jews and their actions in calling on Rome when this sort of thing happened. Rome often came down on their side.

Hosea 11 simply Christian teaching again https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=643

Your Carm quote is comparing 2 different situations. The Egyptians were required to go home during their lifetime. . Bethlehem wasn't Josephs home by 1000 years. Joseph would have had nothing to do with Bethlehem.

Augustine was 1600 years ago. We have a different perspective on the OT now.

The book of Isaiah is one book. No chapter 53 in the original. However https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html

The Dead Sea scrolls are possibly copies of the original. Doesn't affect the fact that Christianity has misused the OT.

No one denies that the preacher was crucified. After all he was taking the people away from the religious leaders with his criticism of their hypocrisy. This they couldn't allow so they made up charges. Again we have a late night trial with the leaders and their cronies. These were held in secret. As with many things we know them when no-one was around to see or hear.

Many early historian etc tell us that Jesus was crucified. I don't think any ever said he was Gods son. Only that his disciples claimed he was.

Whether he died for our sins is a matter of conjecture. Many people die for what they believe in. That doesn't mean they're right. As an example. Many Nazi's died for what they believed in. Where they right? That old argument is pointless.

For your information. I was brought up in a Christian home and converted at the age of 14. I continued in the faith. Whilst in the services I received verbal abuse for my praying etc. After leaving I started studying and preaching the gospel in various denominations and eventually stood in when an elderly minister retired. I've lead Bible studies and done in depth studies of various Bible characters and books.

Unlike you I was not prepared to accept what others told me. I've studied for myself. I've read other studies for an alround understanding. I've studied ancient religion, cultures, history of the Bible area. Judaism and the Jews. Things that are relevant to understanding the Bible. In studying I realised that what I had been taught was not so. That history and archaeology denied much of it. Of course Archaeology confirmed some simply because these things were relevant to Biblical times.

Is there actually any evidence that the Exodus actually happened. None outside the Bible. The fact that the story contains names of places etc would be known by later writers of the story. It's known that various tribes had enclaves in Egypt and that nomadic tribes went in and out feeding their animals in the fertile Nile delta. There is evidence that Israel was a tribe already in Palestine at the supposed time. Besides, why would the Israelites leave Egypt to go to a land (Palestine) ruled by Egypt. Archaeology tells us that the Palestinian tribes, including Israel already in Palestine, rebelled against the Egyptians and threw them out. There are letters found where the Egyptian governors in Palestine plead with Pharaoh to send troops to help them. But Pharaoh had other things on his plate. The Hittites. So the tribes took over. Were the Israeli's the strongest to take over?

I'm now agnostic.

Look outside the Bible for the whole truth.

 

We disagree.

Two of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, as was Paul.

Not true. https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/justice/illinois-drew-peterson-verdict/index.html

It's actually how we know much of what is known of ancient history.

Yes, I'm a Christian.

Who is the 'we' you speak of? The three largest Christian church bodies would agree with my orthodox opinions, the RCC, the Orthodox, and even most of the 70,000,000 Anglican Communion, not to mention 600,000,000 non-denominational evangelicals.

The historians in the Gospels do. Jesus clearly claimed to be divine on a number of occasions, which is why the Jewish leadership wanted Him dead. Interesting they didn't deny the miracles either in the NT or the later Babylonian Talmud, they just ascribed them to demons.

Nazis didn't die claiming to have seen something miraculous. Lots of people unknowingly die for a lie, but my point stands, nobody knowingly dies for a lie, which is what the skeptics basically allege. It makes no sense.

Can I ask are you from the UK and what church body did you grow up in?

That is a bit patronizing, how do you know I don't believe due to my own studying? There are a number of people who set out to disprove the Bible and ended up becoming Christians after honestly looking at the evidence.

What is the evidence that Caesar ever crossed the Rubicon?

Again we disagree. I believe that God is there and is not silent, and that He has spoken to us through His word, truly but not exhaustively.

 

Only one writer was present. John. He was in his dotage. If Jesus died around 28CE at the age of 33 then John would have been around 100. The disciples would have been around the same age as Jesus. Matthew was written by someone who had greater Jewish doctrinal knowledge than Matthew had. Probable a Jewish scribe.

Your secondhand case is likely to go to appeal for that very reason.

We know a great deal of Human history.

Yes, you're a Christian so you don't consider other possibilities.

Many churches are changing their views. Even the Roman Church is having to come to accept they need to change their views occasionally. Many Christians are indoctrinated. The older age group are set in their ways. The younger group are putting religion to one side. The other group simply listen without questioning. I guarantee that most cannot answer simple questions on their faith. I've tried it over the years.

I'm from the UK and have been in whatever church has needed me. I was brought up in the Baptist church. The last was C of E when I moved to a village and no other place was available. There I took courses where I was able to lead and perform tasks in the Church. Also play the organ. Having read my Studies the church vicar and the leaders of the Diocese allowed me to lead Studies. One vicar actually laughed when he read my study of Acts 'It's longer than the book itself' he said(It took nearly 12 months and included the background of the characters - Kings and leaders etc, the cities and events recorded).

If you believe due to your own studying I suggest you study outside the confines of your Christian doctrine. The real Bible is very different to that one you read.

What is the evidence that Caesar ever crossed the Rubicon? His advance on Rome and his eventual defeat of Pompey. The events of Roman History show this..
I've already posted the archaeological evidence that shows Israel was in Palestine and the rising of the tribes. Mernepte Stele, and another source yet to be verified. The Armana Letters pleading with Pharaoh to send troops to put down the tribes.

Studying the Bible without knowing its background is like reading Shakespeare's Sonnets without knowing the language and culture of the day. Many people don't understand them because of this. Can you understand a historical novel based on an era 6oo years ago without knowing that era. Can you understand the OT without knowing its background.

Between Genesis and Exodus is a gap of 400+ years. No generations are given (that's 11 generations missing - 40 years per generation) and yet we have 'continuous' generations from Abraham to Jesus or Adam to Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.. And yet all 13 tribes come out of Egypt in large numbers. How many people were there? How could they survive 40 years in areas that no-one would dare to travel even today. (Well according to the route given). Did a 'Joshua' really cause the destruction of Jericho. This was a small town that you could walk round in 15 minutes. It may have strong walls, but it's walls had fallen before due to the fact it is in an earthquake zone. Proof. An earthquake shook the area in 1926 causing some damage as far away as Jerusalem. Prior to that one in the 12th century is recorded. Ai was already destroyed. The Bible records 3 cities destroyed. Archaeology records far more at that time. Perhaps the Rebellion of the Tribes I mentioned? It appears that Solomons fabulous stables are actually those of Ahab 200 years later. Which makes sense. Solomons capital was Jerusalem. Ahab's was close to the stables. at Megiddo.

So the Bible is reliable.

Please yourself. .

 

I disagree, but how many do you need? Always one more, maybe?

Not what the early church fathers said. It is not credible to think those living closest to the events would not be more authoritative than someone living 2,000 years later. From another source:

"The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”[2] While we do not have a Hebrew or Aramaic edition of Matthew’s Gospel, there are reports that one may have existed in the early church.[3] Regardless, one should not be surprised that Matthew, who would need to have great knowledge of Greek in the business world, originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, only to revise the Gospel in Greek. Even if his Gospel were written in Greek by another, even say an amanuensis,[4] this would not negate Matthew’s authorship. Craig Evans recently recorded a video where he claims that Matthew may have come about in phases.[5]

Pantaenus also confirmed that Matthew was the author of the First Gospel. The great church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, writes that Pantaenus, a church leader in the late 2nd to possibly early 3rd century, came across the Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel. Eusebius notes that Pantaenus was “a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria.”[6] The following is Eusebius’s report of Pantaenus’s encounter with the Hebrew edition of Matthew’s Gospel:

“It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,6 which they had preserved till that time.”[7]

Not as my primary source.

So are lots of non-believers.

Maybe in the dying West, globally Christianity is growing tremendously. See Prof. Philip Jenkins book, "The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity".

Jesus said we need to become like little children to come to faith. He purposely chose for the most part the uneducated for His disciples. It was the educated of the day who gave Him the most opposition, and who received His harshest words.

We would be better off reading Acts than books about Acts, colored by the author's opinions. I don't believe in the Gnostic idea that we need some kind of extra-Biblical knowledge to really know.

Where is the archaological evidence for that? There is none, just as there is none that Jesus walked on water other than the words of those who were there and the evidence of their changes lives. I'll play devil's advocate, all you have for the Rubicon myth is from promoters of that myth, do you have anything independent? See how that works?

Funny you should say that, I just finished a 500 page book on the OT by the Anglican author Chris J.H. Wright.

Here is archaeological evidence for the Biblical events at Jericho:

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/conquest-of-canaan/3625-The-Walls-of-Jericho

If God chose to use an earthquake, so what? IF God exists, miracles are no big deal.

 

'In the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall a thing be established' Several references in the Bible.

The early church fathers said many things. Somewhere In the 2nd century a 'father' supposedly discovered the birthplace of Jesus. It wasn't until the 2nd century that the shape of the cross on which Jesus died was decided upon. That which you see in today's churches. (The Romans used 5 types of cross - 3 of which could have left nailprints - but never in the hand as recorded. Jehovahs witnesses say it was the Upright pole. Who knows.). The idea of Jesus, or simon of cyrene, carrying/dragging his cross from Pilates Palace to Calvary is not true. Wood of the type needed was scarce and kept solely for the actual crucifixion. And the route (Via Dolorosa as the Catholics call it) has been changed from time to time. The idea of Satan as 'Lucifer' was added to the OT by an early father. This was accepted. We now know it to be wrong.The early church was awash with different ideas, doctrines and heresies. It took the Councils of the early churches to actually form anything substantial and then it was by 'Royal Decree'. More Bishops did not actually attend the Nicean Council than did. It was later that the 'tomb' of Jesus was 'found' and built upon.

The early church reported many things, some true, some rather imaginary.

Whatever you like to think, your primary source is very suspect.


So are lots of non-believers. Not sure which part you are referring to

But you read other peoples opinions on Christianity and the Bible that agree with you. The book of Acts study was written as a Christian and studying the book against the background gives more meaning to people, places and events.

You asked for evidence that Caesar Crossed the Rubicon. Not archaeological. We don't need archaeological evidence. History is proof. Had he not crossed the Rubicon history would be different. Several of his opponents lived to regret, and died, because he did what he should not have done. Crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome - forbidden for any Roman general to do..

Anglican author Chris J.H. Wright. An Anglican author. Not surprised he sees Jesus in the OT. You should try reading the Jewish view of the OT. Christian interpretation is Christian interpretation.

There is no evidence for Joshua at Jericho. They can't even agree on a date it was destroyed. How can they know if any army actually overthrew it. The Bible says Ai was overthrown. Sure - about 1000 years before so called Joshua ever existed. Yet archaeology tells us that at this time not just t3 cities were overthrown (Bible) but many others. The Armana letters show that the tribes in Palestine overthrew their Egyptian masters and took over the land. And Israel were already in Palestine centuries before. No Joshua, no invasion. Zilch.

If god exists - no big miracle? That's the usual rely. Unfortunately it's a big IF.

Most of the early part of the OT was written as, what we would call, an historical novel, in Babylon. Places and events of the past were used as part of the story,so archaeology WILL confirm what the Bible says. If I wrote a story around the events of the Great Fire of London and someone reads my book in a 1000 years time it should be no surprise if their archaeological diggers found evidence that I was right.. It only proves an event occurred and not the people I interposed in the story. The Jews had no history or origins they could relate to, whereas the Babylonians had. So they made. Unfortunalely they left a great big gap of 400+ years with nothing in it. And nothing in Egypt to show any slavery of the Hebrews. Recent archaeology in fact has found that Egyptians treated their 'slaves' well to get the most out of them. 'Slaves' homes have been discovered and are reasonable accommodations.