Archaeological evidence..
Seems like one of the main arguments Christians use to attempt to prove the existence of god, despite the bible, is though Archeology. This is as pathetic as it is valid, but anyway. My main point is; I fail to see how just uncovering some ruins, or a tomb, or even a skeleton proves in ANY way that the Jesus was the son of god blah blah blah etc etc. That same old boring rhetoric. How can anyone be so fallacious as to say that because they’re uncovered the tomb or house or castle or whatever of somebody who was mentioned in the bible that this proves the bible is right? While I think most Christians will accept that the bible is not true word for word. Most still seem to treat this Archaeological evidence as valid, when it, to anyone with the most basic of logic, is not.
I’m not trying to tread back on to the ‘does god/doesn’t god exist’ debate but I don’t think anyone with an ounce of intelligence can argue against the fact that these archaeological finds do nothing, either way, for that debate.
If proving ‘god’ was as simple as find some old ruins, I’m sure it would have been proven by now.
SUPER JESUS. :O
Who the hell wrote the bible anyway?
I agree that finding ruins and then claiming that’s why the Bible and God are true is probly not the best way to go about it.
I don’t really want to get in any arguements, so I won’t say any more. I think the best thing is just just let people believe whatever they want. Live and let live
THEY FOUND A PILE OF BONES IN THE DESERT.
JESUS HAD TO EXIST.
I think that even if the Bible listed historical people/events that really did happen, it’s virtually impossible to prove it by now. And I don’t see why it’s so important to them either. If only people knew that science can’t prove what’s written in the Bible. It just can’t, no matter how much you believe.