The reason I can’t become Christian is because archeology contradicts much of the Old Testament. I’m not even talking about Genesis, I understand that most Christians don’t see Genesis as literal. I’m talking about the events of Exodus and onwards.
>Absolutely zero evidence of anything happening in the book of Exodus in real life, no evidence of the patriarchs such as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.
>No evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, let alone enslaved
>No evidence of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua
>Jerusalem by the iron age was only a tiny hill country town and never a capital
>Earliest mentioning of the Israelites as a people or nation was on some Egyptian stone marble in the late 13th century bc, nothing discovered prior to that date
>God was originally Yahweh and then in before was a god named El and was part of a pagan cult of the Canaanite pantheon
>Israelite kingdom only showed up in the 10th or 9th century bc
>Regularly practiced Yahwism where God had a consort named Asherah
>Only started actually being monotheistic after returning from exile in Babylon and establishing a second temple (interestingly around the same time they made contact with the monotheistic Zoroastrians)
Logically this means that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all worshipping a god that has its roots in typical Canaanite polytheism, and therefore all three are false.
If I can’t trust the Old Testament, why should I trust the New Testament?

It's only an issue if you want to become a protestant. Catholics consider the old testament as something like poetry, inspirational but hardly the truth. There were discussions in the early church on whether the old testament should have been part of the canonical bible at all.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Archaeology always shows limited fragments of history. Lack of direct archaeological evidence does not prove that biblical events didn’t happen. Many ancient historical events documented elsewhere are similarly without direct archaeological proof, yet historians still see them as credible.

The assertion that there is “absolutely zero” evidence of the Exodus or the patriarchs reflects a selective understanding. Many archaeologists do argue against large-scale, literal interpretations of the Exodus; however, evidence exists for Semitic populations in Egypt and migrations consistent with a more modest Exodus scenario. Archeological ambiguity doesn’t necessarily falsify historical kernels of biblical narratives.

>>17774673
Except we do have evidence that the scenario OP described is what happened. The idea that Israeli religion directly evolved from Canaanite paganism isn't even controversial in the field anymore,

>>17774639 (OP)
Archeology is a pseudo science and a scam. Oh my look here professor Cohen, I found a significant amount of horse dung under this rock. This strongly suggests a thriving community of black trans lesbians lived here.

>The reason I can’t become Christian is because
"I love sin"
fixed

>>17774887
At this point what science or academic feild do conservative Chirstians not consider a pseudo science and a scam?
>Biology
Rejected
>Astronomy
Rejected
>History
Rejected
>Archeology
Rejected
>Comparative literature
Rejected, at least when used on the bible

>>17775010
There's no such thing as science and the entire secular academy is a scam and a fraud.

>>17775018
At least your honest, though saying that on a computer via the internet is a fat load of hypocrisy. I assume you don't use hospitals either? After all, the doctors are all trained via the secular academy.

>>17775063
>the doctors are all trained via the secular academy.
No wonder they perform abortions and sex changes.

>>17775066
So do you use them then, or no?

>>17775068
The abortions and sex changes? Nah, that's all for you guys.

>>17775010
Although I don't like the term Evolutionary Psychology, it is a measurable, replicable, and applicable science. Although it's currently limited to seduction techniques

I don't see why any of the facts you mentioned mean you cannot be a Christian.

The biggest historical question for Christians is the Resurrection. Christ is the Word made flesh. Either Christ rose from the dead, or He didn't. If the former is true, then speculating about how God revealed Himself in the Near East becomes an interesting theological question that could be informed by archaeology.

I see no reason why sharing roots in Canaanite polytheism or the non historicity of the conquest of Canaan would be a problem. Catholics often reject a strict, literal historical reading and see much of the Old Testament as some Israelite ethnogenesis or mythohistory. If thats true, then it mostly dodges your concern, but it does brings up other interesting questions.

I've heard of Egyptian monotheists who were in conversation with peoples who eventually become some proto Israelites. I don't remember specifics, but the discussion was on how this exchange helped shape Yahweh worship. I don't see how anything like what I mentioned means you can't trust the New Testament-- seems like you could say its part of God revealing himself ultimately leading to Christ and his actual resurrection.

That said-- some historical facts about the Old Testament cannot be removed from the New Testament and cannot be dismissed as poetry. If we accept the Resurrection, then we are indeed committed to certain historical facts, such as the existence of some historical Moses, as Moses did appear and talk with Jesus. And this wouldn't be a problem as from what I gather most scholars think some historical Moses did exist.

But if I were you, I'd be more concerned about whether the Resurrection actually happened, not if Yahwism has roots in Canaanite polytheism

>>17775069
Avoiding the question I see. That's OK anon. I know you want to keep benefiting from science while rejecting its practice, but at some point that might bite you in the ass.

>>17775081
>pilpul

you claim that your god is divine and from the OT begotten rabbi yeshua

>you don't understand le bible is like poetry maaaan it's just beautiful not meant to be taken literally
>except you will literally burn for eternity if you don't start worshiping jews right now, that part is legit
Why are christcucks like this?

>>17774656
>>17775081
>we never believed the bible anyways
Reminder Romanism is a counterfeit Christianity
>>17775082
Your false god has no hand in the world, the only benefit the Science will give anyone is its death. You're a clown, and being a committed idiot you will not be placated by reason. But just in case anyone is foolish enough to be swindled by your sophistry I will repeat again that there is no such thing as science. Biology exists, astronomy exists, science does not exist. There is no special privileged category of knowledge, which is justified merely by saying that it is. But the advantage he has from this word (which is really dead letter) is that he can use it to tether biology, astronomy and many other fields of study to his worldview, so that he can equate your failure to submit to him with denial of human knowledge itself. There is obviously no inconsistency between my use of a computer and my failure to believe 2+2=white privilege.

>>17775098
>religious grifter calling anyone swindlers

lol

move Mt Everest to Washington DC or be proven a fraud

>>17775106
No.

>>17775108
faithless fraud confirmed

>>17775098
> There is no special privileged category of knowledge, which is justified merely by saying that it is
Good thing no one claimed that.
>science does not exist.
Yes it does, multiple fields use the scientific method, which distinguishes them from something like history that does not.
>so that he can equate your failure to submit to him with denial of human knowledge itself.
You absolutely deny a huge portion of human knowledge. Evolution is not just some academic theory, it is used in the production of vaccines among other things. Parts of modern medicine would not work if evolution was false.
>no inconsistency between my use of a computer and my failure to believe 2+2=white privilege.
Oh yes, because some nut in some nebulous studies department made some stupid comments about math or whatever means the entire academy is tainted beyond usefulness. And you accuse me if conflating fields of study!

>>17775131
>Good thing no one claimed that.
Of course not. It's unlikely you're intelligent enough to have a modicum of self-awareness, and if you were you would never put your indefensible standards in a position to be attacked. It was an accurate description of them, however.
>Yes it does, multiple fields use the scientific method, which distinguishes them from something like history that does not.
You can't give me a consistent definition of "the scientific method", you don't apply it consistently, the claim that there is valid knowledge which does not use it is inconsistent, and even if you did, it would not justify the invocation of "science" as a privileged authority.
>You absolutely deny a huge portion of human knowledge
I don't deny any human knowledge, only human lies (the ones you love prompting this conversation).
>some nut in some nebulous studies department made some stupid comments
I know you want to keep benefiting from science while rejecting its practice, but at some point that might bite you in the ass.

>>17775142
>It was an accurate description of them, however.
No its not. Science is not perfect and not always right and I would never make that claim.
>You can't give me a consistent definition of
>You can't give me a consistent definition of "the scientific method", you don't apply it consistently, the claim that there is valid knowledge which does not use it is inconsistent, and even if you did, it would not justify the invocation of "science" as a privileged authority.
this is a whole lot of nonsense. If science is "privileged" its only because the scientific method, gives more opportunities to falsify claims in a systematic manner. This does not mean that only scientific knowledge is valid, if knowledge is ever valid beyond its perceived usefulness, but now we're getting off track. If I cannot give you a consistent definition of "the scientific method" its only because by this point is more a general principle of prediction and observation that is applied differently in different disciplines. Nevertheless, even in something like Paleontology predictions are made and then tested, and are often falsified. Its just a more drawn out process than double blind studies in medicine. This is in contrast to history where we can't really test claims in the same manner. Doesn't make it invalid, it just means there are less ways to falsify claims, which is why actual academic historical writing tends to be very circumspect.
>only human lies
Your religious dogma is not a substitute for testing claims or evaluating evidence. You don't believe in testing the Bible by any metric, only in testing other claims against the Bible.

>>17775180
>You don't believe in testing the Bible by any metric, only in testing other claims against the Bible.
Amen, and you're the same with your ultimate presuppositions.

>>17774639 (OP)
>I’m not even talking about Genesis, I understand that most Christians don’t see Genesis as literal
No, they just believe a literal magic flying jew magically walked on water and then died and magically came back to life lol. Why do people give these pathetic rehabilitative prefaces lol. Normalization after 2k years is the only reason anyone is charitable to this cult and it's propaganda. I stop at the fact they can't even get their own interpretations of the jewish myths straight. Pretty clear to me it was always a d&c psyop against rome

>>17775092
You are not white, Chud Anon.

>>17774639 (OP)
you probably shouldn't be shopping for religions when you don't have even a basic understanding of the concept of god

>>17775229
>>17775092
Jesus was a Roman who spoke Aramean and hated the Second Temple rabbis.

>>17775298
Jesus was a Roman subject, like the rabbis. But he was totally Alien to Rome. Barely even tethered to the Rabbis themselves. His objective was the transformation of Judaism. Not it's destruction.

>>17775193
Presuppositions are a thing, which is why I try to minimize mine, and change any that someone does manage to challenge, even question them myself from time to time.
Additionally, none of my presuppositions require me to believe in certain historical events or leave such claims unchallenged. "The bible is true" isn't a brute fact or an axiom, and should not be treated as such.

>>17775018
A BBC study is more relevant than bible studies

>>17775081
>The biggest historical question for Christians is the Resurrection. Christ is the Word made flesh. Either Christ rose from the dead, or He didn't
Other people in bible also rose from the dead and they aren't considered the messiah

>>17775081
>The biggest historical question for Christians is the Resurrection. Christ is the Word made flesh. Either Christ rose from the dead, or He didn't. If the former is true, then speculating about how God revealed Himself in the Near East becomes an interesting theological question that could be informed by archaeology.
There's no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth - or Lazarus for that matter - outside of the New Testament, written many decades later by people unrelated to the witnesses claimed, and based on oral tradition.

With that said, Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament predicates his divinity as being a natural result of the Old Testament. The archaeological and literary evidence suggests that the vast majority of the stories in it are substantially or entirely false, and in fact the entire religion, its myths, and its doctrines arose from earlier polytheist belief.

>>17775298
>Pilate questioned Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered: "It is as you say."
Mark 15:2
>He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Matthew 15:24
>I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God's salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 1:16
>You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
John 4:22
>Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.
Matthew 2:2
>We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles.
Galatians 2:15
>Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
Mark 9:5
>Being reminded, Peter said to Him, "Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered."
Mark 11:21
>Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."
John 1:49
>This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."
John 3:2
>Immediately Judas went to Jesus and said, "Hail, Rabbi!" and kissed Him.
Matthew 26:49
>And they came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him."
John 3:26

>>17774639 (OP)
>The reason I can’t become Christian is because archeology contradicts much of the Old Testament
Let me guess, you also believe in the epic science giant hollywood lizards from a billion years ago? fucking kek fedoras are pathetic

>>17775397
>I try to minimize mine, and change any that someone does manage to challenge
You're confused, by presupposition I do not mean assumption, I mean the basic beliefs which define your worldview, which you take for granted and are not self-aware about, and which you use to evaluate everything else including these words right now. Setting them aside like you describe is impossible, there is no tabula rasa.
>none of my presuppositions require me to believe in certain historical events
Oh that's not true. For example they require you to believe Jesus did not rise from the dead.
>"The bible is true" isn't a brute fact
There's no such thing as a brute fact. I am not proposing anything like this, that the bible as a proposition be independently adopted in this way so that we may then rationalistically of our own autonomous wisdom construct a worldview, such would be no different from what you already believe and absurd. I argue for the Christian religion as a system of thought. The bible is true not in a vacuum but by sole virtue of the inspiration of God.

>>17775846
>Oh that's not true. For example they require you to believe Jesus did not rise from the dead.
You made the assertion. Ordinarily, people do not rise from the dead. Ergo, if you can't prove this occurred, it's not an "assertion" to believe it to be wrong any more than it would be for me to assert that Jesus was actually a transvestite and ask you to prove it.

>>17775852
>Ordinarily, people do not rise from the dead
How do you know that?

>>17775863
It's funny that you're forced to retreat to this, because as the New Testament refers to it as a "miracle", it actually agrees

>>17775868
Retreat to what sir, I asked a simple open-ended question about your worldview and your knowledge.

>>17774919
It's because he's not a retard. Sin is made-up and doesn't exist btw, retard-kun

>>17774639 (OP)
All those arguments are spoken in your ear by a demon. All of them are false.

>>17774656
Yes. Catholics do not worship the Almighty El Shaddai God of Abraham. They worship the sun.

>>17775846
You're confused, by presupposition I do not mean assumption, I mean the basic beliefs which define your worldview,
Are you asserting its impossible to change your world view based on new information?
>Oh that's not true. For example they require you to believe Jesus did not rise from the dead.
They no not. That is a conclusion I reached, one that I could change if new information presented itself that proved or at least strongly supported the idea that Jesus rose from the dead.
>The bible is true not in a vacuum but by sole virtue of the inspiration of God.
>in this case the inspiration of God, or just "God" is your axiom, and you must therefore also believe that he inspired and his nature corresponds to the descriptions in the bible. That is a lot of presuppositions.

>>17776133
>Are you asserting its impossible to change your world view based on new information?
The new information will be assessed in light of your worldview.
>They no not.
Do you believe in immaterial and supernatural things?
>in this case the inspiration of God, or just "God" is your axiom, and you must therefore also believe that he inspired and his nature corresponds to the descriptions in the bible. That is a lot of presuppositions.
That's the Christian worldview.

>>17774639 (OP)
>Logically this means that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all worshipping a god that has its roots in typical Canaanite polytheism, and therefore all three are false. If I can’t trust the Old Testament, why should I trust the New Testament?
Good argument. I can't contradict your sources either. The best answer I can offer you is "to marry another one." Conversion is an admission to a social club that comes with benefits, including but not limited to friends, decorations, cuisines, books to read, and things to do every day.

My own social club, the Jews, witnessed the life, death, and burial of their prophet, Jesus; that is why we will always reject Christianity and why the Christians and Muslims will always want us dead. Regardless of the text and the hatred, there are perks to every social club, such as access to ritual decorations for your marriage, the births of your children, and your death, and that will be a big part of your own history and archaeological record someday. What would you want quoted on your headstone? Where do you think your kids should go to school? What kind of poetry do you find appealing?

>>17776148
>The new information will be assessed in light of your worldview.
This is a non answer. Can you change your world view based on new information or not?
>Do you believe in immaterial and supernatural things?
Believe? no, but that is not the same as categorically discounting them. I cannot say with certainty that nothing of that type exists, nor would I assert that categorically for the sake of my world view. Belief is not certainty.
>That's the Christian worldview.
Yes, the problem is you appear to take presuppositions like "God" and extend that category to everything else in your world view. You're lumping lots of different kinds of presuppositions together as if they are the same. Asserting there is a God is not the same as asserting the sky is red, or an event happened.

>>17776409
>This is a non answer. Can you change your world view based on new information or not?
You will not change your worldview based merely on information because the new information will be assessed in light of your worldview.
>Believe? no
Ok, then your presuppositions require you to believe Jesus did not rise from the dead. Everything that follows is rhetoric.
>the problem is you appear to take presuppositions like "God" and extend that category to everything else in your world view. You're lumping lots of different kinds of presuppositions together as if they are the same
No.
>Asserting there is a God is not the same as asserting the sky is red, or an event happened.
No, but your presuppositions will inform your interpretation and beliefs about history and everything else.

>>17776432
>You will not change your worldview based merely on information because the new information will be assessed in light of your worldview.
I don't see any reason to think that a persons worldview is some hardwired construct. You might need more proof for some thing than others, but any belief is subject to change under the right circumstances.
>Believe? no
>Ok, then your presuppositions require you to believe Jesus did not rise from the dead.
No, because this belief is not a certainty. At most they make me skeptical of the prospect Jesus rose from the dead. The existence of uncertainty is not mere rhetoric or cover.
>No, but your presuppositions will inform your interpretation and beliefs about history and everything else.
But that is the problem, you should try to challenge your biases, not embrace them.

>>17774639 (OP)
The problems raised with "Canaanite polytheism" weren't raised with El. Abraham explicitly paid tithe to a priest of El. No seriously learned man of the faith would find it controversial that the chief god of the Canaanites was the One True God, except for maybe batshit insane protestants who think that they're the real Jews or whatever. That applies for Christians and Jews, Muslims are a can of worms.

The issues raised with Canaanite polytheism were with tutelary deities and a various assortment of traditions. After Solomon, the Hebrew movement became more and more radical and anti-tradition. No more veneration of ancestors, no more sacred status of cedar trees. It probably extends beyond that, and most of the "We were led astray!" commentary in the old testament is a historical rewrite/justification to cover up and excuse the rejection of many different traditions.

From a secular point of view, that shouldn't come as a surprise. It's apparent that the Hebrew movement began as an uprising of lower classes and nomads at the end of the bronze age collapse. It had always been a contrarian, anti-tradition movement. David and later Solomon (or whatever leadership they're a metaphor for) clearly stabilized things and brought about a syncretic coexistence. But after Solomon, the anti-traditionalism starts up again. Do you think it's any coincidence that the big story after Solomon's reign is a literal cave dwelling wretch being God's favorite little boy and making a mockery of the evil ba'al worshipping princess? It's a continuation of the same shit we got a glimpse of in the Armana letters.

Some of those traditions are preserved by Maronites. Canaanites held on to their religion until the early middle ages, and kept many practices after converting to Christianity. They kept more of their old practices than Europeans did, naturally the jump wasn't as big for them.

>>17776459
>I don't see any reason to think that a persons worldview is some hardwired construct
I didn't say it was hardwired
>You might need more proof for some thing than others
What proof do you need to believe you don't need proof for things?
>No, because this belief is not a certainty
This is obvious rhetoric that has no significance for this discussion. Certainty is a subjective feeling that represents absolute confidence concerning a proposition, however whether one experiences certainty or an alternative emotional state is immaterial to the question of their actual affirmation of the proposition, which is belief.
>But that is the problem, you should try to challenge your biases, not embrace them.
Why should I do that? By what standard?

Your mistake is in thinking you put this belief over here, and this one over here, and maybe you could end up figuring it out. But that isn't the Christian religion. We believe that the immortal Triune God has a purpose in this world, that since the sin of man plunged the world into corruption He has kept for Himself a remnant who are faithful to His name, at various times and places He has spoken to them, revealing Himself and His will for man. And when the fullness of time had come God invaded His own creation, being born in the likeness of man. And being found in human form He sacrificed Himself, taking upon Himself the penalty which was due to His people. He died, was buried, and on the third day He rose again, ascending to the Father's side to intercede on behalf of the saints whom He purchased, and pouring out His Spirit on the same, that they may read His words in scripture and walk in the light of the truth. That is the Christian worldview.

We do not know anything autonomously by our own wisdom, but we are submissive to God's thoughts. The difference between paganism and Christianity is the difference between autonomy and obedience. This is what I meant when I said I argue for Christianity as a system of thought.

>>17776432
>You will not change your worldview based merely on information because the new information will be assessed in light of your worldview.
The conclusion doesn't derive from the premise. The premise implies non-commutation and non-association (new information is affected by old information, ergo order and grouping matters) it does not even remotely fucking imply immutability.

>>17774656
if its "hardly the truth" then the new testament being the fulfillment of this "hardly a truth" book becomes meaningless

>>17775830
Matthew 23:8
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."

>>17776830
Christ has a master.

>>17776472
>>No, because this belief is not a certainty
>This is obvious rhetoric that has no significance for this discussion. Certainty is a subjective feeling that represents absolute confidence concerning a proposition, however whether one experiences certainty or an alternative emotional state is immaterial to the question of their actual affirmation of the proposition, which is belief.
Whether one is certain of their beliefs or not is central to the issue. Your presupposition of God is not so much the difference between us, as your unwillingness to subject any element of that believe to scrutiny or question, treating the entire belief system as a brute fact. This is special pleading.

>>17774639 (OP)
No evidence doesn't mean is not there, by mere logical levanites and egyptians knew each other like greek and egyptians did, the coptics texts as well as the dead sea scrolls all point to some writing civilization repeating and storing the abrahamic religion, to me the telling heart of religion is andean religions and how they merged seemingly with christianism by the use of the cross who was used on andean religions and the concept of monotheistic hegemony also a part of their religion

While greek like pantheism exists organized religion always went towards we are all one with the earth/god/nature/the spirit/etc

Is all about the understanding of non egocentrical conciousness

>>17777013
>Your presupposition of God is not so much the difference between us, as your unwillingness to subject any element of that believe to scrutiny
Those are the exact same thing. Your "scrutiny" is unbelieving autonomy.
>treating the entire belief system as a brute fact
I once more tell you there is no such thing as a brute fact, that is, something which is true independently of God or worldview. Consider this.
>This is special pleading.
Not even close

>>17777315
And again you conflate belief with certainty and a refusal to examine. These are three different things.
>I once more tell you there is no such thing as a brute fact,
I said you treat the entirety of the faith as one, that is a fact that just has to be accepted and is not subject to inquiry.
>Not even close
Then what other aspects of life, besides Christianity, do you believe to be unquestionable and why?

>>17777484
>And again you conflate belief with certainty and a refusal to examine
No.
>I said you treat the entirety of the faith as one
I deny it.
>not subject to inquiry.
It's plenty open to inquiry, it is not open to judgement.
>Then what other aspects of life, besides Christianity, do you believe to be unquestionable and why?
It's not that it's "unquestionable" sir, maybe you should go up and read what I wrote again because you seem to be ignoring it. I am advocating for a total Christian world and life view, for Christianity as a system of thought. To then throw that away and subject God and His word to our judgement as autonomous rational agents is logically incoherent and morally unacceptable. I don't understand what part of this is so difficult for you other than an unwillingness to hear what I'm saying.

>>17774639 (OP)

Welcome Home

>>17774887
Archeologists don't claim anything without investigating primary sources otherwise it would be like a detective claiming to have solved a crime by only investigating the crime scene.
>This strongly suggests a thriving community of black trans lesbians lived here
Transwomen still have male skeletons so there's no way they could know that. Archeology is actually the most problematic science because of that lol. In 300 years they dig up a tranny's grave and go like "Yep, male".

>>17774639 (OP)
Take the Scientific Christian Pill, believe in Gods message not the literal history of it all.
The bible is written by man not God.

>>17775852
Sure if you outright ignore Quantum Physics theories of higher dimensional planes, Quantum Entanglement, and the fact we cannot measure outside the third dimension. If something is immeasurable at the present time, it doesn't exist to you, so I guess bacteria and other microbial life didn't exist until the 17th Century when first observed. "If I tell you of Earthly things and yet you do not believe me, how can I tell you of Heavenly things?"

>>17775018
>there's no such thing as science
Do you take any medications? How about your family and friends?
Do you think that's all fake?

>>17775098
you're a dumbass