who created christianity

[Justtristo]

[Anomalocaris]

it's insulting to use the word 'propaganda' for something that is purely just evidence for something that some people believe in. Especially when that 'something' is God and the bible, the basis on which I live my life

It does not rise to our standard of evidence. It does not even rise to our standard of respectable propagada. It's propaganda of the shabbiest and crudest kind to promote perhaps the most damaging fantasy every prepetrated by men. That fact that you live your life by it and glorify it with a capital "g" does not improve our opinion of it. The fact that some people might actually live their lives by it is all the more reason for us to express in the clearest of terms what our view of it is.

[16three-john]

It does not rise to our standard of evidence. It does not even rise to our standard of respectable propagada. It's propaganda of the shabbiest and crudest kind to promote perhaps the most damaging fantasy every prepetrated by men. That fact that you live your life by it and glorify it with a capital "g" does not improve our opinion of it. The fact that some people might actually live their lives by it is all the more reason for us to express in the clearest of terms what our view of it is.

I do not understand what is so shabby and crude about the evidence listed on that page. If you have proof that these facts, which verify events in the bible (therefore evidence for the reliability of the bible), are not true, then please share them.

[lilyannerose]

It does not rise to our standard of evidence. It does not even rise to our standard of respectable propagada. It's propaganda of the shabbiest and crudest kind to promote perhaps the most damaging fantasy every prepetrated by men. That fact that you live your life by it and glorify it with a capital "g" does not improve our opinion of it. The fact that some people might actually live their lives by it is all the more reason for us to express in the clearest of terms what our view of it is.

I do not understand what is so shabby and crude about the evidence listed on that page. If you have proof that these facts, which verify events in the bible (therefore evidence for the reliability of the bible), are not true, then please share them.

Could it be that Laurence Gardner also uses the Sumerian Texts but comes up with an entirely different POV as his translation states that the events in these alleged Texts are from a previous Golden Age? I give Gardner the same level of credibility as I give organized religion. Whatever my POV, you still have the same texts with opposing points of view.

Next?

[Minimalist]

[16three-john]

Here is a page with many examples of archaeological finds verifying the writings in the OT. For example, for hundreds of years, the city of Ur, wrote about in the OT, was thought to have not existed. However, early in the 20th century, the city was found and excavated, and contained scrolls and tablets which were completely independent of the bible, but verified its historical accuracy. The finds from 6th century Jerusalem show that there were people all the way back then following God, and that was my point, that there were christians back then. Also, please don't get confused between the people I'm calling christians, and the common christian found today. These were people who followed God directly, not a bunch of people claiming that they were better than them (ie cathoilic and protestant priests). I do not have time to read a book right now because I have a lot of work, but is there any shorter links or things to read that get across your point? I will, however, order that book and read in when I do have time.

[lilyannerose]

Here is a page with many examples of archaeological finds verifying the writings in the OT. For example, for hundreds of years, the city of Ur, wrote about in the OT, was thought to have not existed. However, early in the 20th century, the city was found and excavated, and contained scrolls and tablets which were completely independent of the bible, but verified its historical accuracy.

Then why is Pietro Della Valle credited with finding the first of the cuneiform written on the walls and the Seals in 1625?

[16three-john]

I have not heard of this man before. From what I think, he found writings from the city of Ur, not the city itself. The finding and excavation of the city, as far as I am sure, is credited to a British man named J.E. Taylor, in the years 1854-55. The British Museum commenced its excavations of the acient city in 1919. Can you please specify as to whether you think Pietro Della Valle found the city, or just the writings and seals?

[lilyannerose]

I have not heard of this man before. From what I think, he found writings from the city of Ur, not the city itself. The finding and excavation of the city, as far as I am sure, is credited to a British man named J.E. Taylor, in the years 1854-55. The British Museum commenced its excavations of the acient city in 1919. Can you please specify as to whether you think Pietro Della Valle found the city, or just the writings and seals?

I can suggest that you google

Pietro Della Valle ur seals 1625

I was addressing the tablets and scrolls issue I suggest that you can do your own homework regarding your questions. I find it best to let individuals cure their own ignorance by doing their own research.

[16three-john]

I am trying to understand what exactly you are saying, and what basis you have for saying it. I have not said that your claim about the tablets and scrolls was wrong. In fact, you're being ignorant by making claims but refusing to provide reasons for your claims