Israeli Archaeologists May Have Found Emmaus, Where Jesus Appeared After Crucifixion

Mar 2019
3,285
1,687
"US" of A
#71
There will be nothing offered that will be enough to convince unbelievers to believe in Christ and his Resurrection. The fact that the bible explains how there were many eye witnesses who saw and spoke to Christ after his Resurrection and who saw him taken up into the clouds, is not believed by sceptics.

It takes Faith to believe the Bible and many refuse to believe the Greatest Story Ever Told, because they want visible proof -- something that cannot be offered to them, as Christ lived and died over 2,000 years ago.

As Christians, we believe that when archeologist find places that many sceptics didn't believe existed, it adds weight to the truth of the scriptures. But, as I said, you cannot prove these things happened, because there is nobody today who knew the earthly Christ.

Does Archaeology Support the Bible? A Look at the Evidence
Does Archaeology Support the Bible? A Look at the Evidence
These finds continue to provide substantial support of the Bible's written record. Some of the finds include Belshazzar, King Darius, and King Cyrus' being mentioned by name. What were once thought to be mythological empires mentioned in the Old Testament, like the Hittite's, have been found to have existed after all.

You merely choose to believe. And that’s it, that’s all there is to it.
 
Nov 2008
64,064
5,021
Washington state
#72
I disagree with your claim that I was less than civil, merely because I questioned the logic she put forth in her OP. My tone was measured. I did not assume a mocking or disparaging tone, nor did I attack MichelleZ as a person.
She was just showing the significance of this town being discovered in reference to her religious beliefs. It proved something to her, but it obviously didn’t prove anything to you because it was only meant to be significant to religious people. Saying what you said to her was offensive to anyone that has religious beliefs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Dec 2014
14,194
11,892
Tatooine
#73
Well supernatural is just a super, natural event but the "resistance" to the oppression of state supported religions would seem to logically apply to other indoctrinations such as state supported science.

Supernatural is not 'just' anything; it demands that we suspend our disbelief based upon reason with the poorest of evidence. Science is science, and there is no bias in the truth whether it is privately funded, or funded by the state.
 
Nov 2008
64,064
5,021
Washington state
#74
Any word on archeological evidence of where Mary got laid/impregnated?
Jews use what Christians believe to say Joseph’s wasn’t the Father. Odd they don’t think Jesus was the Messiah, but they believe what Christians believe to support their unbelief. Talk to them if you want to be further confused.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Dec 2014
14,194
11,892
Tatooine
#75
I simply stated the OPs point.
Which was logically flawed, as many you believe to be attacking her simply pointed out. The OP claimed "Every time there’s an archaeological discovery like this it helps to verify biblical accounts."

This is an veiled empirical claim which is not true. It simply proves that a town with that name may have existed. It does nothing to support the supernatural nature of the content as implied.


Most have twisted that point as a means of trying to prove Jesus was there and the Ark was there.
See above on the empirical nature of the claim.

To claim this Discovering this lost city was proof the city actually existed as stated in the Bible. To MichelleZ that confirms historical significance that town existed.
And more, see above.

The Rude people on this thread triangulated this to mean this shows proof the Ark and Christ was there.
The only rudeness I've seen thus far is that which you directed at Ian. Any other perceived slight is merely a product of your poor comprehension.

No way was that the intention, the OP confirmed the town exist. Why a supposed religious Jew opposes the discovery of a town spoken of in their book baffles me.
See the empirical nature of the claim above.
 
Dec 2014
14,194
11,892
Tatooine
#76
Jews use what Christians believe to say Joseph’s wasn’t the Father. Odd they don’t think Jesus was the Messiah, but they believe what Christians believe to support their unbelief. Talk to them if you want to be further confused.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, they are pointing out the contradiction in Christian dogma. That does not require a belief in the concept. Example: if you claim that God was the father, why do they try to prove his lineage back to King David through two different genealogies?

It's an absurdity.
 
Nov 2008
64,064
5,021
Washington state
#77
No, they are pointing out the contradiction in Christian dogma. That does not require a belief in the concept. Example: if you claim that God was the father, why do they try to prove his lineage back to King David through two different genealogies?

It's an absurdity.
No they use Christians belief that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit to say Joseph wasn’t the Father of Jesus. Interesting they use their unbelief to support their belief. Confusing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Nov 2008
64,064
5,021
Washington state
#78
Which was logically flawed, as many you believe to be attacking her simply pointed out. The OP claimed "Every time there’s an archaeological discovery like this it helps to verify biblical accounts."

This is an veiled empirical claim which is not true. It simply proves that a town with that name may have existed. It does nothing to support the supernatural nature of the content as implied.




See above on the empirical nature of the claim.



And more, see above.



The only rudeness I've seen thus far is that which you directed at Ian. Any other perceived slight is merely a product of your poor comprehension.



See the empirical nature of the claim above.
Notice it supports a religious belief, not an atheist belief. The discovery of this town further supports a religious belief that the Ark was there and Jesus was seen there when he rose from the dead.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Dec 2007
51,591
38,357
Pennsylvania, USA
#79
She was just showing the significance of this town being discovered in reference to her religious beliefs. It proved something to her, but it obviously didn’t prove anything to you because it was only meant to be significant to religious people. Saying what you said to her was offensive to anyone that has religious beliefs
"Anyone that has religious beliefs" or "anyone that has religious beliefs similar to yours?"
 
Likes: Dangermouse