The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[samuelbb7]

there is a vast difference between putting the words in the mouth of some cartoon well understood mythical figure and saying I am this real person who said this.

The Scholars who say this was a practice are those who do not belive the Bible and follow the school of historical Criticism but they have no proof that was ever done it is pure speculation.

The Old Testament was complete and written out before JESUS ever came to the earth. I just say some of the Dead Sea Scrolls which were copies of earlier scrolls from over one hundred years before JESUS was born. so the people who killed JESUS did not write them.

It is good to understand the culture of the time period that is true. But we also need to compare it to what was written latter.

The hygienic laws do say they were for religious purposes but they had a health effect that we now know why they were given.

Psa 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
Psa 22:3 But thou [art] holy, [O thou] that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
Psa 22:4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
Psa 22:5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
Psa 22:6 But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
Psa 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, [saying],
Psa 22:8 He trusted on the LORD [that] he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
Psa 22:9 But thou [art] he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope [when I was] upon my mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.
Psa 22:11 Be not far from me; for trouble [is] near; for [there is] none to help.
Psa 22:12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong [bulls] of Bashan have beset me round.
Psa 22:13 They gaped upon me [with] their mouths, [as] a ravening and a roaring lion.
Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
Psa 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
Psa 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Psa 22:17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me.
Psa 22:18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

[Dilettante]

samuelbb7 wrote:

there is a vast difference between putting the words in the mouth of some cartoon well understood mythical figure and saying I am this real person who said this.

OK, maybe that was not a very good analogy. How about this one: for a long time, and well into the 1600s, it was customary to introduce any idea you wanted people to listen to with the words "Aristotle said this...", even if, in all likelihood, he had not been the originator of this particular idea. This practice is similar to an "argument from authority". Many of us wouldn't accept this nowadays, but it got people's attention back then.

The Scholars who say this was a practice are those who do not belive the Bible and follow the school of historical Criticism but they have no proof that was ever done it is pure speculation.

Those Scholars do believe in the Bible. But they do not believe in a literal interpretation of it, if that's what you mean. The Bible can be interpreted in more than one way. Your way is one, their way is another. No one can prove their interpretation to be the "correct" one.

The hygienic laws do say they were for religious purposes but they had a health effect that we now know why they were given.

Well, it could be that they were expressed as religious duties to make sure that people would follow them. I can see that. Still, as far as pure hygiene is concerned, those laws do not extend beyond a few basic precautions and some (dietary laws, impurity of menstruating women, male circumcision...) are not clearly related to hygiene or health issues. The effect those laws had on the overall health of the Hebrews as compared with other people is unknown to us.

[samuelbb7]

Well the books that advocate the historical criticism viewpoint did not support your contention. Now there may be others I have not read who are more amenable to the bible. But most of the ones I read start off with something along the lines of we know these events or writers are not true or mistaken or could not have happened. So I very much doubt they really belive in the Bible or in the GOD of the Bible.


Now yes the laws are not many. The one about women set us a time for the renewal of relationships. this was the most opportune time for the women to get pregant. Which adds another point to the increase of children. Many of the unhealthful foods that are listed have diseases also that can kill you and still kill some people today. For instance trichinosis is still spread by pigs and oysters often spread cholera.

[Dilettante]

Very true, samuelbb7. However, one can avoid trichinosis by cooking pork properly. It is not necessary to avoid eating pork altogether. If the dietary laws had been purely health-oriented, they would have probably focused on adequate cooking of pork meat.

Also true that oysters can spread cholera. But so can water and other foods. Cholera is still endemic in the Middle East. Again, avoiding oysters in the warm months would have been enough.

In conclusion, the laws you are referring to seem to me primarily religious directives rather than health guidelines.

[Lotan]

It's my understanding that the prohibition against pork is based on the fact that pigs make poor herd animals and are therefore not suited to a pastoral nomadic lifestyle. They are more suited to a settled life.