[_ Old Earth _] Archeological Evidence Confirming Bible

[reznwerks]

Re: Which evidences have not been discredited

[


Hi there!

Literary sources and recent archaeological discoveries make the identification of the house of St. Peter in Capernaum virtually certain.

The house was built at the very end of the Hellenistic period (first century B.C.). In the second half of the first century A.D. some peculiar features set apart this building from all the others so far excavated in Capernaum. Here, in fact, the pavements received floors of lime several times. Interesting enough, many pieces of broken lamps were found in the thin layers of lime. ...One hundred and thirty-one inscriptions were found. They were written in four languages, namley: in Greek (110), Aramaic (10), Estrangelo (9), and Latin (2).
We are looking for historical evidence of the historicity of Jesus.That was not it.

The name of Jesus appears several times. He is called Christ, the Lord, and the Most High God. An inscription in Estrangelo mentions the Eucharist.
Writing the name Jesus is no more proof of existance than it is for inscribing Zeus or Apollo.

There are also symbols and monograms, namely: crosses of different forms, a boat, the monogram of Jesus. The name of St. Peter occurs at least twice: his monogram is written in Latin but with Greek letters. In another graffito St. Peter is called the helper of Rome. A third inscription mentions Peter and Berenike. This Peter, however, might be the name of a pilgrim. On several hundred pieces of plaster, decorative motifs appear. the colors employed are: green, blue, yellow, red, brown, white and black. Among the subjects one can distinguish floral crosses, pomegranates, figs, trifolium, stylized flowers and geometric designs such as circles, squares, etc.
Again no evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

...At the beginning of the fifth century, the house of St. Peter was still standing, but it had been previously changed into a church. This we learn from Eteria, a Spanish pilgrim, who wrote in her diary: "In Capernaum, the house of the Prince of the Apostles (=St. Peter) became a church. The walls, however, (of that house) have remained unchanged to the present day."
Eteria must be very old if she can make these claims.
[Stanislao Loffreda, "Caperaum - Jesus' Own City," Bible and Spade, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Associates for Biblical Research, 1981), pp. 12, 7-8.]


I believe that the excavations of Capernaum are "outside the Bible" as well as the entry by Eteria (the pilgrim).
This is a belief or rather legend and not proof.

And the "plaster" is "outside" the Bible.
.....and not able to be documented as to when it was applied or how old it is.


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Re: Which evidences have not been discredited

[


Hi there!

Literary sources and recent archaeological discoveries make the identification of the house of St. Peter in Capernaum virtually certain.

The house was built at the very end of the Hellenistic period (first century B.C.). In the second half of the first century A.D. some peculiar features set apart this building from all the others so far excavated in Capernaum. Here, in fact, the pavements received floors of lime several times. Interesting enough, many pieces of broken lamps were found in the thin layers of lime. ...One hundred and thirty-one inscriptions were found. They were written in four languages, namley: in Greek (110), Aramaic (10), Estrangelo (9), and Latin (2).
We are looking for historical evidence of the historicity of Jesus.That was not it.

And, though I identified the distinction between historical evidences and archaeological evidences earlier in this thread, you must have missed it, so I will give you the distinctions again.


Historical evidences are the written word, the manuscripts, papyrus, codexes, ostraca, cuneiforms, stone inscriptions... all types of inscribed records.

Archaeological evidences are the artifacts or relics of a previous society.

The inscription at Capernaum and at the Vatican are "historical evidences" or written evidences that have been preserved by archaeological means... but they are still historical evidences.

Oh, you don't have to take my word for it...

"Doing Archaeology in the Land of the Bible" John Currid, 1999, Baker Books, page 16...

"Archaeology is the study of the material remains of the past" and is quoted in that book from Chippindale, 1996, page 42

(Currid) quoting from de Vaux 1970, page 65... "Archaeology, therefore, is limited to the realia, but it studies all the realia, from the greatest classical monuments to the locations of prehistoric fireplaces, from art works to small everyday utensils... in short, everything which exhibits a trace of the presence or activity of man."

"The written materials of antiquity do not belong to the field of archaeology proper. Written reords are more the province of historians than archaeologists. Althought the latter often dig up the written works, analysis and study thereof belong to the epigraphers, paleographers, and historians. Currid, page 17)


The name of Jesus appears several times. He is called Christ, the Lord, and the Most High God. An inscription in Estrangelo mentions the Eucharist.
Writing the name Jesus is no more proof of existance than it is for inscribing Zeus or Apollo.


Well, that is a red herring as Zeus and Apollo are not in this discussion, are they? No more drifting off the subject, please.

We are talking historical evidences, that inscriptions are historical evidences.

There are also symbols and monograms, namely: crosses of different forms, a boat, the monogram of Jesus. The name of St. Peter occurs at least twice: his monogram is written in Latin but with Greek letters. In another graffito St. Peter is called the helper of Rome. A third inscription mentions Peter and Berenike. This Peter, however, might be the name of a pilgrim. On several hundred pieces of plaster, decorative motifs appear. the colors employed are: green, blue, yellow, red, brown, white and black. Among the subjects one can distinguish floral crosses, pomegranates, figs, trifolium, stylized flowers and geometric designs such as circles, squares, etc.
Again no evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Again, you are in error, inscriptions are historical evidences. Historical evidences are the written word, such as "letters", "heiroglyphics", "petroglyphs", cuneiform elements, manuscripts, codices... etc.



...At the beginning of the fifth century, the house of St. Peter was still standing, but it had been previously changed into a church. This we learn from Eteria, a Spanish pilgrim, who wrote in her diary: "In Capernaum, the house of the Prince of the Apostles (=St. Peter) became a church. The walls, however, (of that house) have remained unchanged to the present day."
Eteria must be very old if she can make these claims.


"Scholars" have not refuted Eteria's journal... nor have they discarded the historical evidences of inscriptions. Inscriptions are the greatest finding in archaeological excavations.



[Stanislao Loffreda, "Caperaum - Jesus' Own City," Bible and Spade, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Associates for Biblical Research, 1981), pp. 12, 7-8.]


I believe that the excavations of Capernaum are "outside the Bible" as well as the entry by Eteria (the pilgrim).
This is a belief or rather legend and not proof.

You are incorrect in your understanding. Capernaum exists, the house of Peter exists, the inscriptions exist, the plaster exists (presently in the care of the Franciscans in Jerusalem) and the journal still exists. None of that is myth.... or legend, or belief... but actual, physical evidence.

Want a look of ancient Capernaum before excavations? about 1890....

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic41a-m.jpg

Buried safely under all that rubble, the residual of an earthquate in 749 AD is the house of Peter, the foundation of the synagogue, the housing for the Roman garrison stationed there, the public bathhouse... all safely preserved for 2000 years.






And the "plaster" is "outside" the Bible.
.....and not able to be documented as to when it was applied or how old it is.



You underestimate archaeologists. The plaster is verified, documented, in fact, if memory serves me correctly, there are three layers of paster, with all inscriptions safely preserved by succeeding layers of plaster. As I stated earlier, the plaster is still available, held by the Franciscans in Jerusalem.


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Re: Which evidences have not been discredited

4. The eyewitness accounts of Peter and Paul. Both Peter and Paul have been proven to have existed by historical evidences and archaeological evidences outside the Bible...,. look for Peter at the Vatican.... look for Paul in Cyprus archaeology. (This is still a good reference. There are evidences of these two witnesses outside the Bible)


Can't find Peter or Paul outside of the bible. Nothing here is proven. Find unbiased sources for the claim outside of the bible.If you notice all we have about Paul is the writings in the bible and the same for Peter. We don't know for sure who these people were or if there was more than one writing under the same name as was popular to do then.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~mcneil/m2lec1a.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETER.htm

Hi there!

I note that your first reference does not deny the existence of Peter or Paul, therefore I stand by statement that there are eyewitness accounts.

In your second URL, I quote...

Our first glimpse of Peter comes at the very beginning of Jesus' ministry. While He was walking along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, casting a net into the water.

That would be incorrect. The first time that we see Peter in the Bible is in the gospel of John, when they are at "Bethany beyond Jordan" before the beginning of the Galillean ministry....


[quote:50b5c]38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? 39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

[/quote:50b5c]

Find unbiased sources for the claim outside of the bible

I refer you to Capernaum.... I also referred you to previously to the cypriotic archaeological artifacts.

I have given you many references outside the Bible, and you still refuse to accept the truth... that the historical Jesus did exist.

~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Re: evidence

[
Hi there!

First of all,

as to why you would assume the vault was sealed no later than A.D.42.

That was not "MY" assumption, but the understanding of the lead archaeologist in the study.

"About seven hundred metres behind Talpiot a tomb was excavated in 1945 and several ossuaries containing human bodies were found. Inscriptions and coins proved that the burial in the tomb took place in the years 41-42. Two ossuaries were found marked with the word "Jesus," and some others have so far been undeciphered. It has therefore been assumed that followers of Jesus had been buried in this tomb. If this assumption proves correct, this tomb would show the earliest historical evidence known about the followers of Jesus." [Official Guide To Israel (Tel-Aviv: 1950) 247.]...
"ASSUMED" is not proof. Did anyone ever consider FRAUD. It was and is quite common both then and now especially in an attempt to validate the religion.

There are only 3-4 types of tombs in first-century Isreal.

1) Jewish tombs... recognized because they have no jewelry
2) pagan tombs.... recognized because they have jewelry with depictions of pagan god or pagan symbolisms.
3) Christian tombs... recognized because of their religious symbols to Christianity, or their jewelry which depicts Christian symbolisms.
4) some "others" ... unknowns or specifics such as foreign cultic members.


One does not consider "fraud" in a sealed tomb. And interesting concept, but one which you have ignored... most tombs are accidentally discovered by bulldozing old buildings or building new roads. Fraud is never a consideration when a bulldozer finds a tomb buried under six feet of dirt. You are grasping at straws to scream "fraud" in such circumstances.




"In 1945, many more found with crosses, 2 inscribed with name of Jesus, and one had a coin minted in A.D. 41 for King Herod Agrippa I, indicating it was sealed by A.D. 42."
I think this was answered quite nicely by others that pointed out with real evidence that using the cross did not become common until several hundred years after the supposed event.


And those postings have been addressed "quite nicely" by better information.

Another found with inscribed crosses and the name "Shappira". This unusual female name hasn't been found in Jewish literature of that era, except for the book of Acts...
Well Acts was estimated to be written sometime from 50 to 100 years after the supposed event. I don't know how you are trying to link this with Jesus and the name Shappira. If he found the name Shappira in a tomb inscribed with crosses it can only be assumed based on the info we have is that the name Shappira became more popular later on as it can't be together with crosses since they weren't used for several hundred years. The bottom line is the tomb is much younger than the founder let on.

And your proof is? What gives you more skill at determining the age of a tomb than experienced archaeologists using proven methods of dating?




Another one from the first century, described in the "American Journal of Archaeology" The text reads: "After the name 'Jesus,' the exclamation or dedication read "y'ho," meaning "Jehova" or "the Lord". The full inscription on the ossuary reads, "[To] Jesus, "the Lord," In light of the A.D.42 date for the sealing of this tomb, the presence of this dedication to "Jesus, the Lord" attests to the Christians' acceptance of Jesus Christ as God within ten years of the death and resurrection of Jesus in A.D."
If you want us to believe it is authentic then why doesn't anyone else accept it.
" Reviewing Mel Gibson's "Passion" film, committee senior researcher Joe Nickell asserts: "Historically, apart from later Christian sources, there is virtually no evidence for Jesus' crucifixion - or even his very existence."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qH ... e%22&hl=en
If it could be verified, this coffin, more correctly called a bone box or an ossuary, would form a direct archaeological link to Jesus Christ. Such archaeological evidence for Jesus and his historical existence has never before been found and would have important ramifications for Christianity.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary.htm
The two links above ARE NOT from atheist or skeptic websites but from apologetic Christian websites and more are available. You are trying to use discoveries from 1945 that simply have not been accepted as true for one reason or another.There simply is not any archeological evidence of Jesus in the first century. Was there evidence of Christianity ? Yes

[quote:4329f]
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...evidence+for+Jesus"+"outside+the+bible"&hl=en

Did you read the thread that you posted? It supports the historical evidences of Jesus Christ and, in fact, refutes your previous claim concerning the "cut-n-paste" response concerning Josephus. It seems your cut-n-paste information was less than accurate.

There simply is not any archeological evidence of Jesus in the first century.

Of course there is... read the definition again that I provided to you concerning the distinctions between archaeological and historical evidences.

For a number of decades, it was a custom to bury a new coin with the dead. The tomb was sealed.
The evidence is simply not accepted by theological institutions. The tomb could have been sealed by anyone with a coin of that date. Those links I used and the one about the James ossuary were written by experts not more than two years ago. Your evidence is not accepted. I don't know who or where you are getting your info as to this is proof but it is not.

You can refuse "my" evidence all you want... you just can't refute it. The tomb was sealed... proven by the documentation on the findings... I didn't make up the excavation notes. That you state the tomb could have been sealed by anyone with a coin of that date shows your lack of knowledge in archaeology and dating methods.

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/tombVoice.htm

The renowned archaeologist suggested that these crosses may be a “pictorial expression†for “He was crucified†(p. 365). While it once was claimed that the “cross†did not appear as a symbol of Christianity until the late second century A.D., further discovery has shown that the timeframe for this symbol now must be pushed back into the first century (Sukenik, p. 365).

[/quote:4329f]
I can find a lot of reference to Sukenik with the "Dead Sea Scrolls" but not much with this supposed discovery. The lack of information and the reference to the links I posted should make you think twice about accepting this as such. No one else does.


and your source is? Names, please this time...

Everything about this "discovery" points to error and fraud whether intentional or not cannot be made.

Again... you need stronger "evidences" of fraud than you posted. Prove the tomb was sealed other than during the 41-42 AD time frame. I want you to understand something about excavations in Israel. When an archaeology site is uncovered by accident as in this case... the Israeli Department of Antiquities sends in an archaeologist representing the government. Do you think that an archaeologist representing the government of Israel is a part of "fraud" where the supporting evidence is FOR Christianity?

Hellooo....

Here is another link which does a fair job of explaining why the discoveries are not that well known and why my assumptions are probably correct.
"The new find would be the first archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus. " This is in reference to the James ossuary. So no recognizes any real evidence BEFORE 2004 for Jesus outside of the bible.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 ... print.html

"While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life." It can't be more plain than that.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/scien ... index.html

hmmmmmmm.... let me read that again... "While most scholars agree that Jesus existed...."

What would be their "proclaimed" evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, if not "physical" (aka archaeological)

why it would be historical. That would be the proven written record.


<grin>


~serapha~

 

[reznwerks]

look

Look Seraph I want to make this plainl. I used two apologetic expert source for the historical evidence of Jesus. They both published as recently at within two years ago that NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED. These were not skeptic or atheist sites. I don't know what else you need to know or what else will convince you that whatever reference you used from 1945 is not accepted as the historicity of Jesus for whatever reason. I gave you possibililties as to why they are not accepted and they are probably true. To go over them again is the fact a coin found minted in AD 41 in not proof of sealing if fraud is the intent. Sealing could be done at any time to make it look legitamate.The use of crucifixes or the sign of the cross is highly suspect since it is not recognized for several hundred years after the supposed event. Sukenik for all his credentials is also accused of having purchased the dead sea scrolls clandestantly which casts a shadow on his credibility.

 

[serapha]

Re: look

Look Seraph I want to make this plainl. I used two apologetic expert source for the historical evidence of Jesus. They both published as recently at within two years ago that NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED. These were not skeptic or atheist sites. I don't know what else you need to know or what else will convince you that whatever reference you used from 1945 is not accepted as the historicity of Jesus for whatever reason. I gave you possibililties as to why they are not accepted and they are probably true. To go over them again is the fact a coin found minted in AD 41 in not proof of sealing if fraud is the intent. Sealing could be done at any time to make it look legitamate.The use of crucifixes or the sign of the cross is highly suspect since it is not recognized for several hundred years after the supposed event. Sukenik for all his credentials is also accused of having purchased the dead sea scrolls clandestantly which casts a shadow on his credibility.

Hi there!

We can put it on hold for a couple of days... I sent emails to both sites you referenced with this message...

Hi there!


I'm in a debate on the internet concerning the historical Jesus...

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 0&start=45

and your site was used as an evidence again any historical reference
to Jesus before the James ossuary.

I was discussing these findings...

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

and was promptly told that they were a "fraud"

This is the specific quote in referencing your site...

"I used two apologetic expert source for the historical evidence of
Jesus. They both published as recently at within two years ago that NO
EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED."

Well?

My theory is this... now that you are made aware that there are
evidences prior to two years ago, that you will update your site.

I would appreciate hearing your opinion.


Thanks!

 

[bibleberean]

Hi to everyone,

I had to delete a lot of the posts in this thread. I hope no one is offended.

It looks like this is back to being a topic about issues so carry on... :D

 

[serapha]

Re: look

Look Seraph I want to make this plainl. I used two apologetic expert source for the historical evidence of Jesus. They both published as recently at within two years ago that NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED. These were not skeptic or atheist sites. I don't know what else you need to know or what else will convince you that whatever reference you used from 1945 is not accepted as the historicity of Jesus for whatever reason. I gave you possibililties as to why they are not accepted and they are probably true. To go over them again is the fact a coin found minted in AD 41 in not proof of sealing if fraud is the intent. Sealing could be done at any time to make it look legitamate.The use of crucifixes or the sign of the cross is highly suspect since it is not recognized for several hundred years after the supposed event. Sukenik for all his credentials is also accused of having purchased the dead sea scrolls clandestantly which casts a shadow on his credibility.

Hi there!

I received replies on both inquiries.... both focused on the James ossuary and apparently did not look at the cited source I sent for their review since neither of them addressed it.

Date: 1/22/2005 08:36:12 -0700
From: "Mark Elliott" <elliottstill@bresnan.net>

I am not sure I understand your question. Our site is non-sectarian and
certainly not apologetic. Archaeology is not an indicator that Jesus
existed. As for the inscription on ossuary, I believe the last part of the
inscription "brother of Jesus" is a fake. The individual who claims that he
purchased the ossuary over 25 years ago and only recently discovered the inscription, has been indicted as part of a forgery ring. As for the
historicity of Jesus, the vast majority of scholars believe Jesus lived.
The problem is that the gospels are not history. They date generations after Jesus' death. The earliest gospel, that of Mark, was written forty years after Jesus' death. The were greatly edited and altered by the early Church.

The followers of Jesus are more interested in his return and the historical
Jesus is little more than sayings, miracles, and the Passion story repeated
by hundreds of his supporters, again and again, all over the Mediterranean.

There is no evidence that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses, although
they probably made use of some eyewitness accounts. The gospels are more reflective of time during the controversies between the nascent Church and the Jewish community. These clashes among Jews and Christians were long after the time of Jesus. The gospels are the outcome of a long and complicated process of editing.

They are theology not history.

Best,
Mark Elliott

Date: 1/22/2005 00:28:33 -0600
From: "Cassiel Sophia" <CassielSophia@meta-religion.com>


Thanks for your email. About the "ossuary", you may be right, but we have to wait. It was presented as original, the rebuked as a fraud, but later some scholars found the "fraud" conclusion was premature. So we still don't know for sure.

Unfortunately, I did not collect the news in the site. However I did follow
the news carefully. The truth about the ossuary is unknown.

Cassiel Sophia

Date: 1/22/2005 11:47:17 -0600
From: "Cassiel Sophia" <CassielSophia@meta-religion.com>


You should show your friend the following articles:

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Reli ... /christian
_articles.htm

They are apologetic articles on Christianity and its historicity. My site
not only contains "atheist" point of view. There are a bunch of good
articles there. Including the defense agains the Code Da Vinci book.

And there is historical evidence but not much. The must important is a
non-christian reference to Jesus executed in a cross in a Jewish historic
book. They had a reference to some person named Jesus executed for heresy aproximetly in the year 100 bc. There is also the reference of Falvius Josephus to the myth of Christh in 50 or 70 AD. So obviously something important happened between this 160 years. I believe this Christ myth was born based on a person, bu ver time it absorbed the majority of the elements of Mithraism. The mitraic cult was a housand years older and contained several trademark Christian stories. Virgin birth, miracles, Man-God-Savior-Sheperd, twelve disciples, desert trip, demon tentation, sacraments of wine and bread, etc. You should look for this in your debate.

However I still believe there was one single person, who was important and relevant. Maybe the stories are not the same, but there was and historical person there.



Cassiel Sophia

These were not skeptic or atheist sites.

<grin>

Being fundamentalist, I would like a discussion on the first set of comments.... but the first site certainly would be a "skeptic" opinion.

To go over them again is the fact a coin found minted in AD 41 in not proof of sealing if fraud is the intent. Sealing could be done at any time to make it look legitamate.

Your problem BTW, is not with me, but with the Israeli Department of Antiquities, who have published that the tomb was sealed. That would be their official determination with some of the greatest archaeologists at their disposal.


~serapha~

 

[reznwerks]

Re: look

Look Seraph I want to make this plainl. I used two apologetic expert source for the historical evidence of Jesus. They both published as recently at within two years ago that NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED. These were not skeptic or atheist sites. I don't know what else you need to know or what else will convince you that whatever reference you used from 1945 is not accepted as the historicity of Jesus for whatever reason. I gave you possibililties as to why they are not accepted and they are probably true. To go over them again is the fact a coin found minted in AD 41 in not proof of sealing if fraud is the intent. Sealing could be done at any time to make it look legitamate.The use of crucifixes or the sign of the cross is highly suspect since it is not recognized for several hundred years after the supposed event. Sukenik for all his credentials is also accused of having purchased the dead sea scrolls clandestantly which casts a shadow on his credibility.

Hi there!

I received replies on both inquiries.... both focused on the James ossuary and apparently did not look at the cited source I sent for their review since neither of them addressed it.

Date: 1/22/2005 08:36:12 -0700
From: "Mark Elliott" <elliottstill@bresnan.net>

I am not sure I understand your question. Our site is non-sectarian and
certainly not apologetic. Archaeology is not an indicator that Jesus
existed. As for the inscription on ossuary, I believe the last part of the
inscription "brother of Jesus" is a fake. The individual who claims that he
purchased the ossuary over 25 years ago and only recently discovered the inscription, has been indicted as part of a forgery ring. As for the
historicity of Jesus, the vast majority of scholars believe Jesus lived.
The problem is that the gospels are not history. They date generations after Jesus' death. The earliest gospel, that of Mark, was written forty years after Jesus' death. The were greatly edited and altered by the early Church.

The followers of Jesus are more interested in his return and the historical
Jesus is little more than sayings, miracles, and the Passion story repeated
by hundreds of his supporters, again and again, all over the Mediterranean.

There is no evidence that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses, although
they probably made use of some eyewitness accounts. The gospels are more reflective of time during the controversies between the nascent Church and the Jewish community. These clashes among Jews and Christians were long after the time of Jesus. The gospels are the outcome of a long and complicated process of editing.

They are theology not history.

Best,
Mark Elliott

[quote:1015f]

Date: 1/22/2005 00:28:33 -0600
From: "Cassiel Sophia" <CassielSophia@meta-religion.com>


Thanks for your email. About the "ossuary", you may be right, but we have to wait. It was presented as original, the rebuked as a fraud, but later some scholars found the "fraud" conclusion was premature. So we still don't know for sure.

Unfortunately, I did not collect the news in the site. However I did follow
the news carefully. The truth about the ossuary is unknown.

Cassiel Sophia

Date: 1/22/2005 11:47:17 -0600
From: "Cassiel Sophia" <CassielSophia@meta-religion.com>


You should show your friend the following articles:

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Reli ... /christian
DEAD LINK
_articles.htm

They are apologetic articles on Christianity and its historicity. My site
not only contains "atheist" point of view. There are a bunch of good
articles there. Including the defense agains the Code Da Vinci book.

And there is historical evidence but not much. The must important is a
non-christian reference to Jesus executed in a cross in a Jewish historic
book. They had a reference to some person named Jesus executed for heresy aproximetly in the year 100 bc. There is also the reference of Falvius Josephus to the myth of Christh in 50 or 70 AD.
THIS IS WIDELY CONSIDERED TO BE A FORGERY So obviously something important happened between this 160 years. I believe this Christ myth was born based on a person, bu ver time it absorbed the majority of the elements of Mithraism. The mitraic cult was a housand years older and contained several trademark Christian stories. Virgin birth, miracles, Man-God-Savior-Sheperd, twelve disciples, desert trip, demon tentation, sacraments of wine and bread, etc. You should look for this in your debate.

However I still believe there was one single person, who was important and relevant. Maybe the stories are not the same, but there was and historical person there.



Cassiel Sophia

These were not skeptic or atheist sites.

<grin>

Being fundamentalist, I would like a discussion on the first set of comments.... but the first site certainly would be a "skeptic" opinion.

To go over them again is the fact a coin found minted in AD 41 in not proof of sealing if fraud is the intent. Sealing could be done at any time to make it look legitamate.

Your problem BTW, is not with me, but with the Israeli Department of Antiquities, who have published that the tomb was sealed. That would be their official determination with some of the greatest archaeologists at their disposal.


~serapha~[/quote:1015f]
I have highlighted the points in blue above to reinforce the point of the original challenge I made in that you didn't have any reliable evidence of Jesus existance. I also pointed out that the referecne from Josephus is considered to be a forgery by both bible scholars and skeptics. You should also re read the last opinion in where he references a man who lived 100 years bc. There is more to that story as well and may in fact be the starting point of the myth.

 

[serapha]

Re: look

I have highlighted the points in blue above to reinforce the point of the original challenge I made in that you didn't have any reliable evidence of Jesus existance. I also pointed out that the referecne from Josephus is considered to be a forgery by both bible scholars and skeptics. You should also re read the last opinion in where he references a man who lived 100 years bc. There is more to that story as well and may in fact be the starting point of the myth.

Hi there!

First of all, the link is not dead, the address continues into the next line and it will be necessary for you to place the addresss in your address line yourself.

Second, a quote from your first reference,

Such references are scarce, but that doesn't surprise E.P. Sanders of Duke University, author of "The Historical Figure of Jesus" and no fundamentalist. He says "it is sometimes hard to believe how unimportant Jesus was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine."

The word highlighted is "scarce" and not "nonexistent" as you imply.


and concerning Josephus, which you cite as a fraud... the site makes this statement...

But scholars say the additions are obvious. If they are deleted, Josephus provided at least these bare facts: Jesus was thought to be a "wise man" and "doer of wonderful works," attracted followers, was crucified by Pilate and started a movement that remained in existence decades later.

Thus, when the so-called "addition" is removed, there is still the historical Jesus.


And this...

It took time for awareness of this tiny religious movement to reach other Romans, but three early references have survived:

-Pliny the Younger was sent as imperial legate to Bithynia (in present-day Turkey) starting in A.D. 111. One of his reports to the Emperor Trajan described a policy of executing Christians who refused to curse Christ and worship Roman gods. He said believers would sing an "antiphonal hymn to Christ as God," followed by a meal.

-Tacitus, who loathed the Christian "plague," recorded around A.D. 115 in "Roman Annals" that Jesus "was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."

-Suetonius wrote about A.D. 120 that the Emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome because they were continually rioting "at the instigation of Chrestus." Historians think this misspelling of "Christ" means Suetonius mistakenly thought a troublemaker with that name lived in Rome. The comment indicates that by A.D. 49, belief in Christ had reached Rome and was dividing Jews.

I believe these are the same three historical references which you said were refuted. This is the site you provided as a credible reference to your statement....

and I quote you

They both published as recently at within two years ago that NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED.

Now, concerning the second site which supposedly had " NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED"

http://www.meta-religion.com/Archaeolog ... rthead.htm



Arav calls the scholars who continue to cast doubt on Jesus' existence "a very marginal minority," and says that "99 percent of researchers in the world operate under the assumption that Jesus existed. There is no serious dispute in historical research concerning the issue of his existence. Those who argue otherwise ... don't deserve serious consideration."

However, he notes, "even for the doubters Bethsaida constitutes a breakthrough in the study of Jesus. This is an archaeological approach to resolving the dispute over Jesus. We have uncovered an authentic source, a new option - reaching a decision in the age-old dispute not on the basis of texts, but on the basis of the material culture that is being uncovered here."

I believe you and your "credible scholars" are a very marginal minority"...

I really like Rami's work at Bethsaida. I know a lot of peole who have excavated there. He's a very credible and capable archaeologist.

I have highlighted the points in blue above to reinforce the point of the original challenge I made in that you didn't have any reliable evidence of Jesus existance.

You have not discredited the original information. And, I make this challenge... let's keep the quotes directly from archaeologists when it concerns archaeology, then, we will have credible references on the subject.

I also pointed out that the referecne from Josephus is considered to be a forgery by both bible scholars and skeptics.

And that same site identified that evened without the "so-called additions"... that the personage of Jesus Christ existed.

You should also re read the last opinion in where he references a man who lived 100 years bc. There is more to that story as well and may in fact be the starting point of the myth.

That is a red herring, changing the topic from the Christ of Calvary to a Jesus wannabe of a previous time. While I may have introduced that thought by posting the entirity of the email, let's do keep the subject on topic.


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Hello et. al.

I want to stress several points concerning archaeology in Israel that many people may not know.

First of all, not all findings are public information. When a site is excavated, and artifacts and relics are found, no one may discuss that information publicly until the lead archaeologists (usually two) publish their findings from that excavation.

The biggie that comes to mind are the decades that the information derived from the Dead Sea Scrolls were not being published and made available for the rest of the world to benefit. By law in Israel, the archaeologist who originally registers the archaeology site is the only archaeologist(s) who may excavate there. Further excavations may only be done with the permission of the originating archaeolgist. These types of rights are legally "willed" to other individuals many times... and this is one of the problems that happened with the DSS, when one linguist/epigrapher died, he willed the rights to one of his students and the material remained in the private sector for years.

So, there is a lot of information that exists that goes "unpublished". One more recent example was the finding of scrolls at Nahal David in the fall of 2003, and it was six months before the scrolls were turned over to the Israeli authorities (May 2004) and the news of finding new scrolls was made public.

I know of one site in Israel that this will be their fifth year, and they remain unpublished (for a reason) , therefore, the information concerning their excavations remain private. There was a reference to the Cana excavation here, I believe that material remains "private" and there are no excavation notes available (published) to verify the work.

When speaking of archaeology, it usually is best to go to the "horse's mouth" and not rely on internet information unless that site is supported by archaeologists... such as the site for "Jersualem Perspective"...

http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/

or the Oriental Institute archives (Chicago)

http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/Research_Arch.html

A third point, not every archaeologist dealing in the biblical Middle East is "Christian". Probably, most are not Christian. Religious beliefs do not add "credibility" to any archaeological study. Amnon Ben-Tor, director of the Hazor Excavations, does not feel that archaeology and the Bible must align 100 percent for archaeology to support the Bible. Israel Finkelstein feels that the conquest never occurred, even though it is a significant part of the Jewish heritage. These types of statements do not add nor detract from their abilties to excavate in a credible manner. I cited earlier, the Wadi el-Kharrar concerning the excavations of "Bethany beyond Jordan" which the lead archaeologist is muslim.

Archaeology and historical references do not deny or disprove that Jesus Christ existed. Only a "marginal" number of people believe that. Those involved in the work would not be in the "marginal" number.


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Re: Which evidences have not been discredited

Now, what evidences have yet to be proven as unsatisfactory evidences of the historical Jesus.

1. I have found that the best evidences of Jesus of Nazareth being the Christ, the Son of God, and also being the Lord God Almighty are the inscriptions at the location known as Peter's house in Capernaum. The plaster in the walls where the inscriptions were found can be dated by the chips of pottery that were used in the plaster, making them some of the oldest archaeological evidences.

Inscriptions can be made by anyone at anytime. It is very hard to date plaster to within several hundred years. As I said , if you refer to the lin I posted which discussed the most resent ossuary found last year they said no historical real evidence is to exist of Jesus. You make a claim of fact in 1945 which is not accepted even by those who are experts in the field.


However, you are mistaken in the Capernaum inscriptions which can be dated by the chips of pottery in the plaster. As for the "James ossuary"... it was not "found" last year, and I want a source on the statement, "which is not accepted even by those who are experts in the field" pertaining to the the 1945 finding.

Hi there!

I want to pick up this discussion.

Inscriptions can be made by anyone at anytime.

Inscriptions can be dated, either by the patina, the ink used (pottery inscriptions) or the the material that is inscribed. Yes, inscriptions can be made by anyone at anytime, but that "anytime" can be dated.

It is very hard to date plaster to within several hundred years.

Actually, in this case where the field of time is narrowed down by journal entries of pilgrims to the site, the dating is quite accurate. You see, the "house of Peter" was remodeled more than once, and the journal entires of pilgrims and the descriptions of their journal entries, help to isolate the dating to very specific periods... that would "historical evidences" used to date archaeological findings. The archaeological supports are the pottery shards and the content of the plaster.

As I said , if you refer to the lin I posted which discussed the most resent ossuary found last year they said no historical real evidence is to exist of Jesus. You make a claim of fact in 1945 which is not accepted even by those who are experts in the field.

And as I posted, that ossuary was not "found" last year. In fact, that ossuary was not "found" by any archaeologist at all, and THAT ossuary doesn't belong in this discussion at all since the second inscription has been found to be frauded. However, the inscription of "James, the son of Joseph" remains original and undisputed. But that is a different discussion. I introduced the 1945 findings of ossuary boxes from a seal tomb.

You said that it could have been frauded and that the tomb could have been sealed as a manipulation of the information.


My reply is this... "surely you jest"


~serapha~

 

[reznwerks]

Re: look

I have highlighted the points in blue above to reinforce the point of the original challenge I made in that you didn't have any reliable evidence of Jesus existance. I also pointed out that the referecne from Josephus is considered to be a forgery by both bible scholars and skeptics. You should also re read the last opinion in where he references a man who lived 100 years bc. There is more to that story as well and may in fact be the starting point of the myth.

Hi there!

First of all, the link is not dead, the address continues into the next line and it will be necessary for you to place the addresss in your address line yourself.

Second, a quote from your first reference,

Such references are scarce, but that doesn't surprise E.P. Sanders of Duke University, author of "The Historical Figure of Jesus" and no fundamentalist. He says "it is sometimes hard to believe how unimportant Jesus was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine."

Serapha thats an excuse. The bible says that Jesus spoke to the multitudes. Jesus was very well known and so well known that the authorities worried about him. Three days before his crucifixion the whole city greeted him with palms. What he did to p/o the whole town within three days I'll never know but the claim he wasn't known or significant is bogus. If you accept this then why should he be regarded now when those then did not consider him significant.

The word highlighted is "scarce" and not "nonexistent" as you imply.


and concerning Josephus, which you cite as a fraud... the site makes this statement...

[quote:d9629]But scholars say the additions are obvious. If they are deleted, Josephus provided at least these bare facts: Jesus was thought to be a "wise man" and "doer of wonderful works," attracted followers, was crucified by Pilate and started a movement that remained in existence decades later.

This phrase is not referenced for several hundred years after the event . Josephus was a Jew working for the Roman govt and would never had written it if he wanted to keep his job.Scholars don't accept it a real.


Thus, when the so-called "addition" is removed, there is still the historical Jesus.
Josephus never wrote it.


And this...

It took time for awareness of this tiny religious movement to reach other Romans, but three early references have survived:
You are talking about Christianity not Jesus. No evidece here.

-Pliny the Younger was sent as imperial legate to Bithynia (in present-day Turkey) starting in A.D. 111. One of his reports to the Emperor Trajan described a policy of executing Christians who refused to curse Christ and worship Roman gods. He said believers would sing an "antiphonal hymn to Christ as God," followed by a meal.

-Tacitus, who loathed the Christian "plague," recorded around A.D. 115 in "Roman Annals" that Jesus "was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."

-Suetonius wrote about A.D. 120 that the Emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome because they were continually rioting "at the instigation of Chrestus." Historians think this misspelling of "Christ" means Suetonius mistakenly thought a troublemaker with that name lived in Rome. The comment indicates that by A.D. 49, belief in Christ had reached Rome and was dividing Jews.

Pliney Seutonius and Tacitus lived much later and are not first hand evidence and anything they may say can simply be repeating legend and hear say. Not valid evidence.

I believe these are the same three historical references which you said were refuted. This is the site you provided as a credible reference to your statement....
Absolutely refuted. They are not first hand evidence of Jesus.

and I quote you

They both published as recently at within two years ago that NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED.

Again absolutely no historicity of Jesus exists. You have cited no first hand evidence pertaining to his existance when he supposedly lived outside of the bible.


Now, concerning the second site which supposedly had " NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED"

http://www.meta-religion.com/Archaeolog ... rthead.htm



Arav calls the scholars who continue to cast doubt on Jesus' existence "a very marginal minority," and says that "99 percent of researchers in the world operate under the assumption that Jesus existed. There is no serious dispute in historical research concerning the issue of his existence. Those who argue otherwise ... don't deserve serious
consideration."
Don't deserve serious consideration? That is why in his opening statement that "99 percent of researcher in the world operate UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT JESUS EXISTED"That is not evidence my friend.

However, he notes, "even for the doubters Bethsaida constitutes a breakthrough in the study of Jesus. This is an archaeological approach to resolving the dispute over Jesus. We have uncovered an authentic source, a new option - reaching a decision in the age-old dispute not on the basis of texts, but on the basis of the material culture that is being uncovered here."
Where is the evidence?

I believe you and your "credible scholars" are a very marginal minority"...

I really like Rami's work at Bethsaida. I know a lot of peole who have excavated there. He's a very credible and capable archaeologist.

I have highlighted the points in blue above to reinforce the point of the original challenge I made in that you didn't have any reliable evidence of Jesus existance.

You have not discredited the original information. And, I make this challenge... let's keep the quotes directly from archaeologists when it concerns archaeology, then, we will have credible references on the subject.

I also pointed out that the referecne from Josephus is considered to be a forgery by both bible scholars and skeptics.

And that same site identified that evened without the "so-called additions"... that the personage of Jesus Christ existed.

You should also re read the last opinion in where he references a man who lived 100 years bc. There is more to that story as well and may in fact be the starting point of the myth.

That is a red herring, changing the topic from the Christ of Calvary to a Jesus wannabe of a previous time. While I may have introduced that thought by posting the entirity of the email, let's do keep the subject on topic.
I didn't change the subject. I used a quote from your source as to where the myth of Jesus may have started. Your source admits to no evidence being available to confirm the existance of the Jesus you worship. I have heard of this story before and if you investigate the whole story it is not very flattering to the man or Mary herself.


~serapha~[/quote:d9629]

 

[serapha]

Well, being specific... historical evidences are the written word, aka manuscripts, letters, ostraca, codexes, engravings, inscriptions, etc. Archaeological evidences are the relics and artifacts that relate to a previous society.

A second, excellent location of inscriptions that are verifiable are the inscriptions under the Vatican on the "red wall" of Peter's tomb. Now, I am not an advocate that the bones found in the repository were those of the apostle Peter, but I don't question that the tomb (location) did belong to Peter... The inscriptions are a good source of historical evidence for Jesus as the Lord God Almighty.

I don't feel that the inscriptions under the altar of the Vatican have been "refuted" either. The innermost area was sealed for centuries, but I know.... you will say "it's a fraud".... How do you fraud inscriptions and bones, tombs and catacombs? I mean all in one big swish? I would state that the bones that are declared to belonging to the Apostle Peter, by archaeological understanding, can not be proved to belong to the Apostle Peter. But the other artifacts and relics... they carry merit... they followed all the rules for excavating.

And, maybe the biggest evidence, by historical standard is the sign of the cross... and making the sign of the cross as an exchange between believers... and, of course, the written records of such activities (historical evidences), the mosaics containing the cross (archaeological evidence), the early reliefs (archaeological evidence), the early jewelry that is found in Christian tombs (archaeological evidences). (BTW Jews aren't buried with jewelry)

And I will not dismiss the sign of the cross as being last second century, there are just too many evidences to the contrary. If you chose to reply to this, please cite a source that can be verified.

The eyewitness accounts of Peter and Paul. Both Peter and Paul have been proven to have existed by historical evidences and archaeological evidences outside the Bible...,. look for Peter at the Vatican.... look for Paul in Cyprus archaeology.

Peter WAS an eyewitness, and his having "lived" is not disputed by anyone that I've ever met. And I will address "Paul" later tonight.


And, why are we to dismiss all the writings of the early church fathers? Why are we to dismiss all four gospels? Well, I think that needs to be addressed in another thread on another forum.

Is epigraphy a science?



~serapha~

 

[reznwerks]

artifacts

Well, being specific... historical evidences are the written word, aka manuscripts, letters, ostraca, codexes, engravings, inscriptions, etc. Archaeological evidences are the relics and artifacts that relate to a previous society.

No, historical evidences are things that are reliable not just because they are written down. What is written is by people with no last name , no biography, no evidence outside the bible , the engravings insciptions etc could be done by anyone.


[quote:b0b8a]A second, excellent location of inscriptions that are verifiable are the inscriptions under the Vatican on the "red wall" of Peter's tomb. Now, I am not an advocate that the bones found in the repository were those of the apostle Peter, but I don't question that the tomb (location) did belong to Peter... The inscriptions are a good source of historical evidence for Jesus as the Lord God Almighty.

Inscriptions are not proof of anything other than they are inscriptions. Could be by anyone with motive.



I don't feel that the inscriptions under the altar of the Vatican have been "refuted" either. The innermost area was sealed for centuries, but I know.... you will say "it's a fraud".... How do you fraud inscriptions and bones, tombs and catacombs? I mean all in one big swish? I would state that the bones that are declared to belonging to the Apostle Peter, by archaeological understanding, can not be proved to belong to the Apostle Peter. But the other artifacts and relics... they carry merit... they followed all the rules for excavating.
No one said their aren't inscriptions, bones tombs etc. That is not evidence that Jesus lived. That is evidence of Christianity not Jesus. As I pointed out in another post Hercules appeared to be just as much a real figure if you look at all the statues etc.

And, maybe the biggest evidence, by historical standard is the sign of the cross... and making the sign of the cross as an exchange between believers... and, of course, the written records of such activities (historical evidences), the mosaics containing the cross (archaeological evidence), the early reliefs (archaeological evidence), the early jewelry that is found in Christian tombs (archaeological evidences). (BTW Jews aren't buried with jewelry)

The cross was used as an ancient symbol long before Jesus was supposedly crucified. Evidence that Christians used it is not evident for several hundred years after the suppoesed event. Mosaics , jewelry etc are still not evidence of Jesus .

And I will not dismiss the sign of the cross as being last second century, there are just too many evidences to the contrary. If you chose to reply to this, please cite a source that can be verified.

"During the first three centuries of Christianity, the cross was rare..."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WA ... tory&hl=en

"Further showing its connection with Babylonish religion, W. E. Vine, in An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Vol. 1, page 256), says that the cross “had its origin in ancient Chaldea [Babylon], and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau [or T], the initial of his name).†"
“By the middle of the 3rd century A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had [made a distorted imitation of], certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, . . . with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.â€Ââ€â€Vol. 1, page 256.

So it looks like we are looking for a Pope in office about the middle of the 3rd centuryâ€â€
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:st ... tory&hl=en

The eyewitness accounts of Peter and Paul. Both Peter and Paul have been proven to have existed by historical evidences and archaeological evidences outside the Bible...,. look for Peter at the Vatican.... look for Paul in Cyprus archaeology.

There are no eyewitnessess to Peter or Paul and no evidences of their identity. The writings of Paul could be one man or many men as we don't know. We don't know anything of Peter outside of the bible.

Peter WAS an eyewitness, and his having "lived" is not disputed by anyone that I've ever met. And I will address "Paul" later tonight.

You have never met me so I am the first. Paul is only an eyewitness in the bible nothing else.


And, why are we to dismiss all the writings of the early church fathers? Why are we to dismiss all four gospels? Well, I think that needs to be addressed in another thread on another forum.
Ahh? Because they are biased in their opinion and ARE NOT first hand witnessess to any of the claims. They have motive to lie and the early church fathers had no problem with twisting the truth.
" There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation.’
– St. Jerome (Epistle. lii, 8; p. 93.)

"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him:
‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.
We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."

(St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus, xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" Eusebius
Need more?





Is epigraphy a science? Yes ,especially when it is used to make a judgement of truth or fact.



~serapha~[/quote:b0b8a]

 

[serapha]

Re: artifacts

Well, being specific... historical evidences are the written word, aka manuscripts, letters, ostraca, codexes, engravings, inscriptions, etc. Archaeological evidences are the relics and artifacts that relate to a previous society.

No, historical evidences are things that are reliable not just because they are written down. What is written is by people with no last name , no biography, no evidence outside the bible , the engravings insciptions etc could be done by anyone.


Well, I don't write the definitions, I just use them. So, your problem in accepting the definitions is not with me... but with the education systems. BTW.... we lived for four millennia with "no last names"... so am I to assume that anything written before 100 AD is not historical.... just because the people didn't have last names?

and it doesn't matter "who" does the inscribing, but what the inscription says that carries historical credibility.









[quote:94f3c]A second, excellent location of inscriptions that are verifiable are the inscriptions under the Vatican on the "red wall" of Peter's tomb. Now, I am not an advocate that the bones found in the repository were those of the apostle Peter, but I don't question that the tomb (location) did belong to Peter... The inscriptions are a good source of historical evidence for Jesus as the Lord God Almighty.

Inscriptions are not proof of anything other than they are inscriptions. Could be by anyone with motive.

This is where we disagree because, again, your problem will exist with any archaeological finding (aka inscription) and archaeologists consider any inscription as the best possible finding. If you discredit the best possible findings, then what's left ? dirt? Well, sometime dirt tells it's own tale, but primarily you are simply saying that you reject archaeology in its best form. Again... that is a problem you have with the evidences from archaeology, and not with the evidences that have been provided. That you reject the "evidences" does not mean that they do not exist or that they are rejected by "scholars"... (need a list of scholars that accept inscriptions???)




I don't feel that the inscriptions under the altar of the Vatican have been "refuted" either. The innermost area was sealed for centuries, but I know.... you will say "it's a fraud".... How do you fraud inscriptions and bones, tombs and catacombs? I mean all in one big swish? I would state that the bones that are declared to belonging to the Apostle Peter, by archaeological understanding, can not be proved to belong to the Apostle Peter. But the other artifacts and relics... they carry merit... they followed all the rules for excavating.


No one said their aren't inscriptions, bones tombs etc. That is not evidence that Jesus lived. That is evidence of Christianity not Jesus. As I pointed out in another post Hercules appeared to be just as much a real figure if you look at all the statues etc.


That one flew over my head. Without Jesus there would be no religion called Christianity. Evidence of Christianity is evidence of the existence of Jesus. BTW... the Hercules comments is just another red herring... using a mythological example as though it should be compared to the incarnation of God. I've asked you repeatedly not to use red herrings.


[quote:94f3c]And, maybe the biggest evidence, by historical standard is the sign of the cross... and making the sign of the cross as an exchange between believers... and, of course, the written records of such activities (historical evidences), the mosaics containing the cross (archaeological evidence), the early reliefs (archaeological evidence), the early jewelry that is found in Christian tombs (archaeological evidences). (BTW Jews aren't buried with jewelry)

The cross was used as an ancient symbol long before Jesus was supposedly crucified. Evidence that Christians used it is not evident for several hundred years after the suppoesed event. Mosaics , jewelry etc are still not evidence of Jesus .

And I will not dismiss the sign of the cross as being last second century, there are just too many evidences to the contrary. If you chose to reply to this, please cite a source that can be verified.

"During the first three centuries of Christianity, the cross was rare..."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WA ... tory&hl=en

"Further showing its connection with Babylonish religion, W. E. Vine, in An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Vol. 1, page 256), says that the cross “had its origin in ancient Chaldea [Babylon], and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau [or T], the initial of his name).†"
“By the middle of the 3rd century A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had [made a distorted imitation of], certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, . . . with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.â€Ââ€â€Vol. 1, page 256.

So it looks like we are looking for a Pope in office about the middle of the 3rd centuryâ€â€
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:st ... tory&hl=en

I have a link for you that I think covers just about every occurence where the cross is cited as pagan... or where the cross (crossbeam) is rejected. That the "cross" was used in "other" religions has no relation to Christianity. Since the world was in existence for 4,000-6,000 years before Christ, I am certain that there isn't a symbolism that wasn't used somewhere in some pagan culture. The difference is, when Christ resurrected victorious over sin, death, satan, and the grave, the sign of the cross changed historically.

In particular, the sign of the cross was used in the Old Testament as well... read the link.

http://www.christianforums.com/t91383-a ... slops.html

The eyewitness accounts of Peter and Paul. Both Peter and Paul have been proven to have existed by historical evidences and archaeological evidences outside the Bible...,. look for Peter at the Vatican.... look for Paul in Cyprus archaeology.

There are no eyewitnessess to Peter or Paul and no evidences of their identity. The writings of Paul could be one man or many men as we don't know. We don't know anything of Peter outside of the bible.

Peter WAS an eyewitness, and his having "lived" is not disputed by anyone that I've ever met. And I will address "Paul" later tonight.

You have never met me so I am the first. Paul is only an eyewitness in the bible nothing else.



http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/cmnews/1999/99-08-06.cmnews.html#06

I still stand by the fact that Peter was a Jew, born in Bethsaida, lived in Capernaum, fished on the Galilee, was a disciple of Christ, a student of the house of Hillel, was a missionary in Christianity, and died a martyrs death in Rome.

Paul... well there's the evidence that Paul was a missionary to Cyprus... that and this...

http://www.bethel.edu/~rascar/StudyTour ... tioch4.htm

Note: now insure that you put the ENTIRE address in so you don't miss it and call it a dead link.



And, why are we to dismiss all the writings of the early church fathers? Why are we to dismiss all four gospels? Well, I think that needs to be addressed in another thread on another forum.
Ahh? Because they are biased in their opinion and ARE NOT first hand witnessess to any of the claims. They have motive to lie and the early church fathers had no problem with twisting the truth. " There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation.’
– St. Jerome (Epistle. lii, 8; p. 93.)


If they lie, they go to hell for blasphemy and heresy. What would motivate anyone to do something they know will condemn them in the eyes of God?

BTW... you forgot to cite your source. When you cut-n-paste off a site rather than doing the research yourself, you have to give credit to the person who actually did the work. In this case....

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm


"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him:
‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.
We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."

(St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus, xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" Eusebius
Need more?


BTW... you forgot to cite your source. When you cut-n-paste off a site rather than doing the research yourself, you have to give credit to the person who actually did the work. In this case....

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm

I detest cut-n-paste which someone uses it to deceive... next time you get reported for intentionally posting copyrighted material.



Copyright © 2004 by Kenneth Humphreys.
Copying is freely permitted, provided credit is given to the author and no material herein is sold for profit.


Get your act together.


~serapha~







Is epigraphy a science? Yes ,especially when it is used to make a judgement of truth or fact.



~serapha~[/quote:94f3c][/quote:94f3c]

 

[reznwerks]

paul

[

The eyewitness accounts of Peter and Paul. Both Peter and Paul have been proven to have existed by historical evidences and archaeological evidences outside the Bible...,. look for Peter at the Vatican.... look for Paul in Cyprus archaeology.

Peter WAS an eyewitness, and his having "lived" is not disputed by anyone that I've ever met. And I will address "Paul" later tonight.

There are no reliable sources for Paul's life outside the New Testament. The primary source is his own letters. Of these, Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians are indisputably genuine. Most scholars also accept Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. Opinion is divided about Ephesians, Colossians, and II Thessalonians. The Pastoral Letters (I and II Timothy and Titus) are held by many scholars to have been written considerably later than the time of Paul. ....
http://kevin.davnet.org/articles/paul.html

"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."

-David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)
-----------
Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person.

-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)
--------------
We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)
------------------

"Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jesus". . . and that sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence."

-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
--------------

"We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world."

-Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
-----------------


"All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions."

-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)
------------------------
"The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel."

-Bishop John Shelby Spong
-------------------

"But even if it could be proved that John's Gospel had been the first of the four to be written down, there would still be considerable confusion as to who "John" was. For the various styles of the New Testament texts ascribed to John- The Gospel, the letters, and the Book of Revelations-- are each so different in their style that it is extremely unlikely that they had been written by one person."

-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)
-----------------

"It was not until the third century that Jesus' cross of execution became a common symbol of the Christian faith."

-John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)
---------------

"What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things."

-Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)
----------------

"Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the canonical books ascribed to them."

-Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College (Bible Review, June 1994)
-------------------------
"James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, "is in fact not historical."

How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations concerning Jesus' baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other event written about in the Gospels, is historical?"

-Daniel P. Sullivan (Bible Review, June 1996, Vol. XII, Number 3, p. 5)
----------------

David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus' life, unreliable as sources of historical information."

-Bible Review, October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39
-----------------

"The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts."

-Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels
--------------------

"Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "Who Wrote the Bible," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
----------------------------
"Three letters that Paul allegedly wrote to his friends and former co-workers Timothy and Titus are now widely disputed as having come from Paul's hand."

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
----------------------

"Second Peter has suffered even harsher scrutiny. Many scholars consider it the latest of all New Testament books, written around A.D. 125. The letter was never mentioned in second-century writings and was excluded from some church canons into the fifth century. "This letter cannot have been written by Peter," wrote Werner Kummel, a Heidelberg University scholar, in his highly regarded Introduction to the New Testament.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
------------------------------
The letter of Jude also is considered too late to have been written by the attested author-- "the brother of James" and, thus, of Jesus. The letter, believed written early in the second century.

-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
-------------------

"The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels."

-Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
---------------------
"Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous followers (or their followers' followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus' life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion."

-David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" (Time, April 8, 1996)
----------------

"So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that "we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus."

-Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926
-------------------

"The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with fiction."

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
-----------------

"Josephus says that he himself witnessed a certain Eleazar casting out demons by a method of exorcism that had been given to Solomon by God himself-- while Vespasian watched! In the same work, Josephus tells the story of a rainmaker, Onias "(14.2.1).

-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
============

"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies."

-Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)
----------

"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"

-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
------------------------
"Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction."

-Robert M. Price, "Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin," Opening Statement

 

[serapha]

Re: artifacts

Is epigraphy a science?

Yes ,especially when it is used to make a judgement of truth or fact.


fine, we can start talking about manuscript evidences then....


Critics of the Bible, cite that since we don’t have the original manuscripts, that we have no proof that the Word of God has been accurately preserved. I disagree.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/ntmss.html


P52 is the oldest known record of the Gospels, and from that site:

Thiede notes P52 "has been dated to the first quarter of the second century but could be still older," (p. 126).

For a picture of P52 and further understanding of the text:

http://members.aol.com/user192905/photos/P52.htm


The following internet site provide the stringent requirements for manuscript transmission, they verify the manuscript witnesses of the known papyrus and codices.

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html

Of particular interest and I quote from

http://members.tripod.com/bible_study/k ... cism3.html

There were eight rules that the Jewish copyists used in the copying of the texts:

1. The parchment must be made from the skin of a clean animal (clean meaning ceremonially clean according to the Old Testament sanitary laws); must be prepared by a Jew only, and the skins must be fastened together by strings taken from clean animals.

2. Each column must have no less than forty-eight, nor more than sixty lines. The entire copy must be first lined.

3. The ink must be of no other color than black, and it must be prepared according to a special recipe.

4. No word nor letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it.

5. He must reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for "God" (Elohim), and he must wash his whole body before writing the name "Jehovah" (LORD in our King James Bibles), lest the Holy Name be contaminated.

6. Strict rules were given concerning forms of the letters, spaces between letters, words and sections, the use of the pen, the color of the parchment, etc.

7. The revision (to correct any errors) of a roll must be made within thirty days after the work was finished; otherwise it was worthless. One mistake on a sheet condemned the entire sheet. If three mistakes were found on any page, the entire manuscript was condemned.

8. Every word and every letter was counted, and if a letter was omitted, or if an extra letter was inserted, or if two letters touched one another, the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once.

With that understanding of the requirements for manuscript transmission, one can believe the the Word of God has been preserved just as God said that He would do.



To reconcile biblical passages which have been criticized:

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/obiblios.htm

For manuscript witnesses:

http://www.kchanson.com/papyri.html

To read the text for yourself:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlypap.html


Or, go to the NT Papyri section on this site:

http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/bibel.html#papo


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Re: look

I have highlighted the points in blue above to reinforce the point of the original challenge I made in that you didn't have any reliable evidence of Jesus existance. I also pointed out that the referecne from Josephus is considered to be a forgery by both bible scholars and skeptics. You should also re read the last opinion in where he references a man who lived 100 years bc. There is more to that story as well and may in fact be the starting point of the myth.

Hi there!

First of all, the link is not dead, the address continues into the next line and it will be necessary for you to place the addresss in your address line yourself.

Second, a quote from your first reference,

Such references are scarce, but that doesn't surprise E.P. Sanders of Duke University, author of "The Historical Figure of Jesus" and no fundamentalist. He says "it is sometimes hard to believe how unimportant Jesus was during his lifetime, especially outside Palestine."

Serapha thats an excuse. The bible says that Jesus spoke to the multitudes. Jesus was very well known and so well known that the authorities worried about him. Three days before his crucifixion the whole city greeted him with palms. What he did to p/o the whole town within three days I'll never know but the claim he wasn't known or significant is bogus. If you accept this then why should he be regarded now when those then did not consider him significant.

Well, yes, Jesus did something to .... what was that term you used... I think I will use a better one. Well, yes, Jesus did several things to make all of Jerusalem detest him. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, a victorious Saviour to the Jews. Then, He cleared the Temple. The Sadducees controlled the Temple and any business conducted within the Temple area. They were the rich, the aristocracy, and he ticked them all off.

Now, the Sadducees were doing the work for the Roman government, and when Jesus attacked the money changers, he was attacking the Roman government, an act of sedition. That would tick off the Roman government.

Jesus went to Bethany and the next day, he is approached by the Pharisees where they tried to entrap him, but it didn't work. But that day, he ticked off the Zealots who looked for a charismatic leader to further their own agenda which was against the Roman occupation of Israel and Rome's right to tax the people which the Zealots considered to be an offering to a pagan god (Rome)

Then, Jesus cricitized the scribes and Pharisees for not doing their job in serving the people. We know that Jesus would have been teaching on the steps used by the rabbis to disciple their followers, and those steps are located just outside the area where the Parisees were located, and where the Sanhedrin met. I do believe when Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Parisees, hypocrites!".... it just might have ticked them off.

So, from riding victorious into Jerusalem as the crowds wanted a King to overthrow the government and lead Israel, instead, they got Jesus who ticked off the Saducees, the Zealots, the Roman government, and the scribes and Pharisees.... all in less than 48 hours.

Does that answer your question?

The word highlighted is "scarce" and not "nonexistent" as you imply.


and concerning Josephus, which you cite as a fraud... the site makes this statement...

[quote:5f08a]But scholars say the additions are obvious. If they are deleted, Josephus provided at least these bare facts: Jesus was thought to be a "wise man" and "doer of wonderful works," attracted followers, was crucified by Pilate and started a movement that remained in existence decades later.

This phrase is not referenced for several hundred years after the event . Josephus was a Jew working for the Roman govt and would never had written it if he wanted to keep his job.Scholars don't accept it a real.

"Yes, scholars do accept Josephus." His work is instrumental in understanding much of the cultural, traditional, and legal systems that were in effect. He expands on the Jewish teachings and understandings. Need a list of scholars that use or quote Josephus?



Thus, when the so-called "addition" is removed, there is still the historical Jesus.
Josephus never wrote it.

and your proof is? and please, no cut-n-paste copyrighted site this time. Please, think for yourself.


And this...
[quote:5f08a]
It took time for awareness of this tiny religious movement to reach other Romans, but three early references have survived:
You are talking about Christianity not Jesus. No evidece here.

-Pliny the Younger was sent as imperial legate to Bithynia (in present-day Turkey) starting in A.D. 111. One of his reports to the Emperor Trajan described a policy of executing Christians who refused to curse Christ and worship Roman gods. He said believers would sing an "antiphonal hymn to Christ as God," followed by a meal.

-Tacitus, who loathed the Christian "plague," recorded around A.D. 115 in "Roman Annals" that Jesus "was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."

-Suetonius wrote about A.D. 120 that the Emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome because they were continually rioting "at the instigation of Chrestus." Historians think this misspelling of "Christ" means Suetonius mistakenly thought a troublemaker with that name lived in Rome. The comment indicates that by A.D. 49, belief in Christ had reached Rome and was dividing Jews.

Pliney Seutonius and Tacitus lived much later and are not first hand evidence and anything they may say can simply be repeating legend and hear say. Not valid evidence.

Again, speaking of Christianity, and the person named Christ, is the same thing... and Christianity grew to such a point that within a few centuries, Christianity was the primary religion in Israel. That is until April 614 AD when Persia joined forces with the Jews and slaughtered 50,000 Christians in one day.... 30,000 in Jerusalem alone.

oops... this site says 60,000 Christians in Jerusalem alone... it's hard to tell how many were killed and buried in mass graves.... you wonder why there aren't any "evidences" that fit your demands.

http://www.israelshamir.net/english/mamilla.shtml

In 614, local Palestinian Jews allied with their Babylonian coreligionists and assisted the Persians in their conquest of the Holy Land. In the aftermath of the Persian victory, Jews perpetrated a massive holocaust of the Gentiles of Palestine. They burned the churches and the monasteries, killed monks and priests, burned books. ....

This devastation was not the worst crime. When Jerusalem surrendered to the Persians, thousands of local Christians became prisoners of war, and were herded to the Mamilla Pool area. The Israeli archaeologist Ronny Reich writes: ‘They were probably sold to the highest bidder. According to some sources, the Christian captives at Mamilla Pond were bought by Jews and were then slain on the spot’. An eyewitness, Strategius of St Sabas, was more vivid: ‘Jews ransomed the Christians from the hands of the Persian soldiers for good money, and slaughtered them with great joy at Mamilla Pool, and it ran with blood’. Jews massacred 60,000 Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem alone. The earth’s population was probably about 50 million then, 100 times smaller than today. A few days later, the Persian military understood the magnitude of the massacre and stopped the Jews

I believe these are the same three historical references which you said were refuted. This is the site you provided as a credible reference to your statement....
Absolutely refuted. They are not first hand evidence of Jesus.

and I quote you

They both published as recently at within two years ago that NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED.

Again absolutely no historicity of Jesus exists. You have cited no first hand evidence pertaining to his existance when he supposedly lived outside of the bible.


That you reject the "evidences" does not mean that they do not exist. It only means that you reject the evidences because you reject archaeology's definitions... you reject inscriptions simple because you say they cannot be date, when I have shown that they can be dated, and in fact, are dated.



Now, concerning the second site which supposedly had " NO EVIDENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS EXISTED"

http://www.meta-religion.com/Archaeolog ... rthead.htm



Arav calls the scholars who continue to cast doubt on Jesus' existence "a very marginal minority," and says that "99 percent of researchers in the world operate under the assumption that Jesus existed. There is no serious dispute in historical research concerning the issue of his existence. Those who argue otherwise ... don't deserve serious
consideration."
Don't deserve serious consideration? That is why in his opening statement that "99 percent of researcher in the world operate UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT JESUS EXISTED"That is not evidence my friend.

However, he notes, "even for the doubters Bethsaida constitutes a breakthrough in the study of Jesus. This is an archaeological approach to resolving the dispute over Jesus. We have uncovered an authentic source, a new option - reaching a decision in the age-old dispute not on the basis of texts, but on the basis of the material culture that is being uncovered here."
Where is the evidence?


Bethsaida and Biblical Archaeology (The Dead Sea Scrolls & Christian Origins Library , Vol 8)
by Rami Arav




Publisher: learn how customers can search inside this book.
Share your own customer images
Availability: This item is currently not available. If you would like to purchase this item, we recommend that you occasionally check this page to see if it has become available.




Edition: Paperback

I believe you and your "credible scholars" are a very marginal minority"...

I really like Rami's work at Bethsaida. I know a lot of peole who have excavated there. He's a very credible and capable archaeologist.

I have highlighted the points in blue above to reinforce the point of the original challenge I made in that you didn't have any reliable evidence of Jesus existance.

You have not discredited the original information. And, I make this challenge... let's keep the quotes directly from archaeologists when it concerns archaeology, then, we will have credible references on the subject.

I also pointed out that the referecne from Josephus is considered to be a forgery by both bible scholars and skeptics.

And that same site identified that even without the "so-called additions"... that the personage of Jesus Christ existed.

You should also re read the last opinion in where he references a man who lived 100 years bc. There is more to that story as well and may in fact be the starting point of the myth.

That is a red herring, changing the topic from the Christ of Calvary to a Jesus wannabe of a previous time. While I may have introduced that thought by posting the entirity of the email, let's do keep the subject on topic.
I didn't change the subject. I used a quote from your source as to where the myth of Jesus may have started. Your source admits to no evidence being available to confirm the existance of the Jesus you worship. I have heard of this story before and if you investigate the whole story it is not very flattering to the man or Mary herself.


~serapha~[/quote:5f08a][/quote:5f08a]



I believe the Old Testament is true, and that the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that the Old Testament has been preserved just as God said that it would be preserved. The Old Testament tells of all the prophecies that would need to be fulfilled for the Jesus to be the Christ... and they were. I don't have to investigate other wannabe "jesus's" ... I have found the right one. That's why the Word of God aligns perfectly... because the Word if perfect... and Jesus is the Word. Jesus was not a myth or a legend. That was addressed in the book of Matthew in the first century....

Some theologians have presented the thoughts that the resurrection of Christ was a developed legend that was developed over time and was written back into the Scriptures. There are two major arguments against this ideology. The first argument is that the grave of Christ is identified as being empty three days after the death of Christ. From a historical perspective, this was obvious because at the writing of the book of Matthew after AD 66, the suggestion that the disciples had taken the body of Christ were still circulating as Matthew cites in Chapter 28. The Jewish question was not that the grave was empty, that was not disputed. What was disputed was knowing what happened to the body. The second argument is the fact that the grave was known to everyone. It was public knowledge. The disciples, friends and family knew. The Jews knew, and more importantly, the Roman government knew. The Roman government certainly would seal and guard the correct tomb considering the controversy over the grave and the need to place guards at the tomb. Perhaps the greatest argument is the eyewitness account of John. John writes of seeing the resurrected Christ in his gospel. If the courts allow the accused to be a witness on their behalf, then certainly, the Gospel of John can be used as a witness to the authenticity of the resurrection of Christ.


~serapha~

 

[reznwerks]

evidence

Serapha
Your entire post and response to mine is dedicated exclusevly to the spread of Christianity and what others believed. You have provided no evidence of the historicity of Jesus. I have used the analogy of Hercules who was worshiped for thousands of years. Using your basis for determining authenticity one would have to conclude Hercules was real as well. I have shown in my post above using those who study the bible and archeology (not skeptics and atheists) those that know and have a vested interest in proving the bible true admit that no evidence exists to confirm a real Jesus. I also pointed out that when they thought the ossuary that was found was that of Jesus brother (2 years ago?] the article said up front that it would be the FIRST evidence of the historicity of Jesus. You have used the "sign of the cross" as "proof" of Jesus and I have pointed out that the cross was used by pagans first and not used by Christians for several hundred years and have cited the sources. Unless you can provide evidence for the historicity of Jesus that most scholars accept then I see no point in continuing this debate. I am not doubting the spread of Christianity. I am doubting the reason. If you want to find out more about the reference to the person that may have started the myth of Jesus you can start here.
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflec ... urces.html