(December 8, 2018 at 7:16 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, this guy failed to see that even the archeologist himself cited in the article was ridiculing the tabloid article that said he discovered David from Bible.
Also to be honest I don't get why Religious people get so worked up which historians think Jesus was based on real person and which not because there is a very small difference. Even those historians that think there was some historical Jesus see that person as perhaps 1% to 5% of what was said in the New Testament he did and said, so it's not like so called "historical Jesus" is any more real to the one they believe existed.
You apparently didn't read all of what was posted. Not only was a value of 1 demonstrated, but it was also likely greater in the piece from the NY Post.
First line:
"Archaeologists are divided over whether or not Biblical figures such as King David and King Solomon ever existed."
If they're divided, I think it's safe to say there is more than even just x1. Unless you're suggesting that none of them qualify as historians.
Your statement:
"No credible historian considers that any of the patriarch of the Old Testament existed like Noah and his flood, Adam, Sampson, David, Moses..."
As far as any new statements, even in a tabloid, they would not impact his original statement that the view is "divided", because he could be on the "doesn't believe" side, but by his own admission there is another side that thinks differently. You can't have a different side that thinks differently if there's nobody there, so there has to be implied that a value exists of at least 1.
The problem you're having here isn't with religion, it's with math. 1 > 0
