ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.

[Saint Frankenstein]

Zeus is on, what, Mount Olympus? Go there and check.

Excuse you, but the ancient Greeks wouldn't have literally believed that the Gods physically lived there since they went and built temples there. I think they would've noticed that the mountain top isn't physically the abode of the Gods. The ancients weren't as stupid as modern Bible literalists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke 2:1 "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from
Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."

Some translations say "Roman world" so that it will make sense. But Luke didn't
write that. The taxing is historic, what Luke wrote is historic - "the world" meant
to these people what it doesn't mean to us, or to Noah.

The author of Luke screwed up on more than one level. There was no universal census of the Roman world. There was a census in the year 6 CE and that was the one that he referred to. Ironically he also said that Jesus was born in the time of Herod. That is a rather significant error.

And a local flood makes the Ark superfluous. It would not have wiped out all animals that breathe the breath of life, it would not have wipe out all of mankind except for Noah and family. A rational look at the Bible reveals quite a few flaws.

 

[shmogie]

Amazing. I know how you feel.

When I read Homer and the detailed description of Greece and Troy, I also feel a huge need to believe in Zeus.

Ciao

- viole

Of course you know that the ruins of Troy were found by Schlieman because he took Homer literally, don´t you ?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Archaeology is painstakingly slow.

Also, do you know how many "facts" in the vast majority of non-fictional works are actually verifiable?

In many cases, actually, yes I do. I have a good grounding in history, and know something about the world. I've read novels set in the city that I call my home, and have personal, on the ground knowledge of the veracity of many of the places and events mentioned. And even so, I do not think that the inclusion of all those "factually true" places and events makes the story being told true in and of itself -- even though they do provide "corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."

(The quote is from Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta "The Mikado.")

 

[shunyadragon]

Goodness, you speak for each and every scholar who has a theory of the origination of the NT.

Tell me, how many of them have you read ?

I suggest you read some more.

There are a variety of opinions on the matter. The majority may hold a single view, but the majority isn´t all scholars.

Even Christian scholars hold varying views

Yes scholars hold somewhat different views, but I gave the contemporary consensus of secular scholars. What you offered in the previous post offered a bizarre extreme not held by contemporary scholars. I have read the major scholars, both secular dominantly minimalist, middle of the road, and those that hold a maximalist evangelical view of the NT, and if you would like to start a thread on this I will cite them.

 

[viole]

Of course you know that the ruins of Troy were found by Schlieman because he took Homer literally, don´t you ?

No. But I believe you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

No. But I believe you.

Ciao

- viole

Yes. He was a German Archaeologist ,

 

[viole]

Yes. He was a German Archaeologist ,

Well, that increases my confidence in Zeus. In Apollo too.

Do you feel the same?

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

Pontius Pilate’s ring may have been discovered at ancient biblical fortress

Just another nail that keeps appearing again and again.

It's amazing, to me, how the information in the Gospels and letters are supported by facts that are discovered.

The ring may belonged to Pontius Pilate, but the ring itself only verify Pilate being around as governor of Judaea. Josephus said as much that Pilate was governor at the time of Tiberius being emperor.

The ring don't prove anything in regarding to the gospels or letters, not the story of Jesus' life, eg his miracles, his death and resurrection. The ring don't verify anything regarding to Pilate being connected to Jesus.

I think you are overestimating the discovery of the ring, by reading too much into it.

 

[gnostic]

Yes... And then there was a time when they said King David never existed.

Sorry, but what does the ring have to do with King David?

I don't see the connection.

 

[lukethethird]

The author of Luke screwed up on more than one level. There was no universal census of the Roman world. There was a census in the year 6 CE and that was the one that he referred to. Ironically he also said that Jesus was born in the time of Herod. That is a rather significant error.

Luke stated that the census took place during the time of Cyrenius, (Luke 2:2),
it is Matthew that places Jesus's birth at the time of Herod.

 

[gnostic]

Lots of events in the bible are true including Herod killing off a bunch of Jewish children and the Jewish Temple wall torn down.But it does not mean theres any proof Jesus lived or was crucified.

There are actually no evidences to support killing of children in Bethlehem and no evidence to support Herod giving the order.

The gospel of Luke made no mention of such massacre. And Josephus made the most detailed accounts of events in Judaea in 1st century BCE and 1st century CE, particularly that of Herod the Great.

Josephus seemed to love reporting scandals of Herod's reign and those of his other sons, murders and betrayals, but no where did Josephus write of the massacre in Bethlehem.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course you know that the ruins of Troy were found by Schlieman because he took Homer literally, don´t you ?

I do not believe Schlieman believed that Homer's works were all literally true, but he believed the city of Troy existed.

 

[gnostic]

Luke stated that the census took place during the time of Cyrenius, it is Matthew that places Jesus's birth at the time of Herod.

The gospel of Luke also stated that Jesus was born in time of Herod (Luke 1:5). Mary became pregnant, while Elizabeth was already 6-month pregnant with John. So it is obvious that Mary would also be pregnant at the time of Herod.

The problem is that there were never census taking place in the reign of Herod. The census didn't occur until 10 years after Herod's death.

And Quirinius or Cyrenius was only governor of Syria from 6 CE, the time of the census took place, BECAUSE Augustus banished Herod Archelaus from Judaea and transformed Judaea into a Roman province.

Quirinius was never governor (legate) of Syria while Herod was still alive. During the last 5 years of Herod's life, first Gaius Sentius Saturninus (9 - 6 BCE), then Publius Quinctilius Varus (6 - 4 BCE) were governors of Syria. Josephus does mention both Saturninus and Varus as governors.

Quirinius was serving as governor (legate) of Galatea at that time (12 - 1 BCE), attempting to quell rebellion of the Homonadenses tribe on the mountains at Galatea and Cilicia (between 5 and 3 BCE).

Before Galatea, he served as governor of Cyrene and Crete from 14 BCE. Hence, Quirinius earned the nickname "Cyrenius" because his army defeated the Marmaridae in Cyrene.

Anyway, Josephus stated quite clearly that the census and governorship of Quirinius started 10 years after Herod I's death.

According to the gospel of Matthew, Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt because of the massacre in Bethlehem, but was bound to return to Judaea, after Herod's death. However the news of Herod Archelaus (4 BCE to 6 CE) being ruler of Judaea, caused Joseph to detour to Galilee.

The problem is that Herod's last years (reign 37 - 4 BCE) don't match with the timeline of Quirinius' governorship in Syria (6 - 12 CE) and census (6 CE).

 

[gnostic]

Though mentioned by a few contemporary writers, like Josephus, who also wrote about Jesus, there was no evidence that someone named Pilate ever rule as Roman prefect in Judea.

Josephus wasn't contemporary to Jesus. We don't know exactly what year Jesus' crucifixion took place, but supposedly it was early 30s, so anywhere between 30 and 33 CE.

Josephus was born in 37 CE, so definitely not contemporary.

Josephus was however contemporary to those who anonymously wrote the 4 accepted gospels.

Josephus took part in the rebellion in Judaea, and was captured 67 CE, and probably witnessed the capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Since 67 CE, he became friend to Vespasian and particularly Vespasian's son Titus. Which is why, when Josephus became a Roman citizen, they allowed Josephus to take the family name Flavius.

Josephus didn't witness Jesus' ministry, and I doubt very much the anonymous authors to the 4 gospels were witnesses to Jesus’ ministry. The names that attributed to the 4 gospels were only given in the early 2nd century CE. No one truly know who those authors were.

 

[gnostic]

I admit it. I'm a sucker for a good headline. So, OK. Let's go and see what new nonsense KenS has dug up this time (archeology pun intended).

First thing, as I often do, is to check out the link to get an idea of the validity of the source (or, in the case of some people, the absurdness of the source).

FOX NEWS?!? That put new meaning to ROFLMAO.



But, being curious, I also read the NYT version. They made it clear that it was a rather cheap ring, not one worthy of actually belonging to a Roman official. Even one as relatively obscure os Pilate.

You are right, the Romans wouldn't wear bronze rings.

Before the Roman expansion as the empire (before mid-2nd century BCE), most Roman officials wore rings made out of iron, not bronze.

But during the 1st century BCE Republic, and then later during Roman empire, magistrates, governors and senators, including those of equites origin (eg Pontius Pilate) would have wore gold rings, certainly not bronze.

The equestrian class, was like the middle class, originally serving as cavalrymen in the Roman army, but from 2nd century BCE, they became more traders than cavalrymen, and were gaining more and more political and social powers in Rome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke stated that the census took place during the time of Cyrenius, (Luke 2:2),
it is Matthew that places Jesus's birth at the time of Herod.

If you read the beginning of Luke it is rather clear that Mary was already what was considered to be an adult when she met the mother of John the Baptist. This was in the "time of Herod". Even if you go by Matthew that is a huge difference between the two gospels.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If Rings were indicators of anything then you would need a control to see if that's true or not.

The discovery of an ancient Roman Signet ring for instance. By the same arguments made from the opening post, would suggest along the same lines that the god Victory had existed.

'High status' Roman ring found in field

 

[joelr]

Zeus is on, what, Mount Olympus? Go there and check.
Now research whether there was a King David, whether the
Canaanites were overthrown by the invading Jews, whether
accounts of Bronze Age culture pan out, whether Jerusalem
was the cultic and administrative center of the Jews, whether
Merneptah destroyed Gaza, whether there was a prophet
called Isaiah, whether the Philistines destroyed Shiloh etc..

Just a few
https://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/news/

Many cultures have their "creation myths" I know of none
which pan out historically, archaeologically or scientifically
as the bible.

Archaeologically the bible does not "pan out".

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

scientifically it really doesn't "pan out" ? It says pi is 3 and there is no other science beyond what humans already knew?

historically scholarship considers Christ to have been a man. Divinity isn't supported.

The Ph.D community does believe it to be mostly fiction
Richard Pervoe - showed Acts (2nd half) is forged
Richard Price
Elaine Pagels - revealed a different early Christianity 1/2 Gnostic
Thomas Thompson - archeologist who showed the OT is likely mythology

the mythicist theory is gaining ground by scholars however:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890

 

[PruePhillip]

Josephus didn't witness Jesus' ministry, and I doubt very much the anonymous authors to the 4 gospels were witnesses. The names that attributed to the 4 gospels were only given in the early 2nd century CE. No one truly know who those authors were.

Firstly I suspect the reference to Jesus was a much later edition. It wouldn't make sense that
this Pharisee, one who noted real historic events, dedicated half a book just to Herod's family,
would mention Jesus in passing, as if he was blindsided by Jesus.
Secondly I am find with Luke being the author of Luke and the Acts, and John being the
author of John plus the letters. The character of the persons fit the style of the writing. Same too
for Matthew.