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

[joelr]

I think it is reasonable that there was someone,
around whom the "Jesus" story was built, something
like a pearl on a grain of sand.

Whoever the person was would not recognize anything
of himself in the stories.

What makes it less reasonable is that Jesus in Hebrew means "savior". There is other evidence also of an angel Jesus who in Judiasim was the "right hand angel of god" and such.

So when constructing a savior messiah myth they used this character already written about.

 

[PruePhillip]

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:
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

Without going into this video, what is the thrust of their argument?
I recall people saying that camels were not domesticated in Abraham's
day, so the camel story in Genesis didn't happen. It added to other
claims made against the bible that caused many to lose their faith in
the book. Later it turned out that camels WERE domesticated in
Abraham's day (long before actually) but that didn't bring people back
to believing in the bible.
Ultimately, there is a body of facts AND METHODS OF ARGUMENT
about the bible - some for and some against. Your typical "expert" will
pick for "against" and your typical believer will pick the "for."
That's all it is. The issue will remain forever on a tight rope.

 

[PruePhillip]

Do you believe in the story of the Carthaginian general Hannibal?
Two, just two, Romans wrote of Hannibal. This African General
was supposed to have taken an army, with elephants to boot,
across the Alps and into Rome. And he was never beaten by
the Romans in 12 years.

Believe it? How can you? Where's the archaeology? Where is
the common sense? Someone ought to put it to our biblical
skeptics and ask why this story ought not be believed.

 

[PruePhillip]

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.

Josephus was a Pharisee. His ruling class did not believe in Jesus or the Christians.
He did not seek to promote them. The mention of Jesus in his works smack of later
redaction by Christians.

 

[lukethethird]

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).

Yes, it's a quandary having Jesus born in the time of Herod and Quirinius.

 

[Jumi]

Isn't there more proof about Pilato? Interesting that the ring is in Greek, would that make him Greek?

 

[Jumi]

People love jumping to conclusions, which archaeologists usually don't. So I did some digging. And found a more balanced article on it than the ones that are 100% certain.

As to whose ring it actually was, the authors offer a few suggestions, including other Early Roman period men called “Pilatus.” Likewise, the name may have referred to those under the historical Pilate’s command, a member of his family “or some of his freed slaves,” they write.

“It is conceivable,” write the authors, “that this finger ring from a Jewish royal site might have belonged to a local individual, either a Jew, a Roman, or another pagan patron with the name Pilatus.”

It did not, they conclude, belong to the Roman prefect himself.

Porat offers another possibility, however. What if, maybe, Pilate had a gold ring for ceremonial duties and a simple copper ring for everyday wear?

“There is no way of proving either theory 100% and everyone can have his own opinion,” said Porat. Regardless, “it’s a nice story and interesting to wrap your head around.”

2,000-year-old ‘Pilate’ ring just might have belonged to notorious Jesus judge

 

[ChristineM]

Who said that?
The OT says that God would call the Jews out of all the nations
of their exile, nations that were their "graves."
Back in the late 1800's our scholars and academics mocked the
idea that the Jews would return to Palestine and rebuild their
ancient commonwealth. But it happened.

Facts say that, not a bronze age story book.

 

[PruePhillip]

Facts say that, not a bronze age story book.

The Bronze Age story book (Genesis 49:10) "The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes and the allegiance of the nations
is his."
Shiloh is a name for the Messiah.
This Messiah would end the Israel nation
The scepter is a monarchy - for a nation that at that time didn't exist
The Law is the Law of Moses which ended with the Messiah
Until - meaning that the nation, its law and monarchy will have an end.
allegiance of the nations - Christianity

How did Jacob know this?
How did Isaiah know there would be TWO returns of the Jews to Israel,
and at a time when there hadn't been ONE exile?
How did Moses know the Jews would always be "few in number" despite
being quite numerous at the time?
How did Abraham know the Jews would be a blessing to the world?
I could go on...

 

[Audie]

What makes it less reasonable is that Jesus in Hebrew means "savior". There is other evidence also of an angel Jesus who in Judiasim was the "right hand angel of god" and such.

So when constructing a savior messiah myth they used this character already written about.

That is how prophecy is done.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, it's a quandary having Jesus born in the time of Herod and Quirinius.

Yeah, they were contemporaries, but - and I have to stress BUT - but Herod DIED 10 YEARS (4 BCE) BEFORE Quirinius became governor of Syria (6 CE), and Augustus ordered Quirinius to have the census carried out after Archelaus was banished and Judaea became officially a Roman province.

Do you get it?

Jesus was -

1. either born before Herod’s death (4 BCE)
2. or 10 years after Herod’s death at the time of Quirinius’ governorship and census (6 CE).

Jesus cannot have occurred in both dates.

If the gospel of Luke was to be true,

1. either Luke 1:5 (in which Mary was pregnant 6 months after Elizabeth, assuming Mary was pregnant when Gabriel visited Mary) is wrong,
2. or Luke 2:1-3 is wrong,

Because they can’t be both true, these 2 passages contradicted each other.

Second, as someone else had already mentioned earlier, there is another mistake in Luke 2:1.

In 6 CE, Augustus did not ordered empire-wide census, he ordered a census to take place in Judaea only, his newly acquired province, Judaea.

The third mistake in Luke 2, is that the Romans only have their subjects to enrol in the town they were currently living in, not in the town they were born in or the town of their ancestors.

So if Joseph was already living in Nazareth, Galilee, then Joseph wouldn’t need to go to Bethlehem.

The Romans don’t care if Joseph’s ancestors come from Bethlehem. If he was living in Bethlehem, then he need not enrol at all, since Galilee was a Roman province at that time.

There are so many stupid mistakes made by this gospel alone.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, they were contemporaries, but - and I have to stress BUT - but Herod DIED 10 YEARS (4 BCE) BEFORE Quirinius became governor of Syria (6 CE), and Augustus ordered Quirinius to have the census carried out after Archelaus was banished and Judaea became officially a Roman province.

Do you get it?

Jesus was -

1. either born before Herod’s death (4 BCE)
2. or 10 years after Herod’s at the time of Quirinius’ governorship and census (6 CE).

Jesus cannot have occurred in both dates.

If the gospel of Luke was to be true,

1. either Luke 1:5 (in which Mary was pregnant 6 months after Elizabeth, assuming Mary was pregnant when Gabriel visited Mary) is wrong,
2. or Luke 2:1-3 is wrong,

Because they can’t be both true, these 2 passages contradicted each other.

Second, as someone else had already mentioned earlier, there is another mistake in Luke 2:1.

In 6 CE, Augustus did not ordered empire-wide census, he ordered a census to take place in Judaea only, his newly acquired province, Judaea.

The third mistake in Luke 2, is that the Romans only have their subjects to enrol in the town they were currently living in, not in the town they were born in or the town of their ancestors.

So if Joseph was already living in Nazareth, Galilee, then Joseph wouldn’t need to go to Bethlehem.

The Romans don’t care if Joseph’s ancestors come from Bethlehem. If he was living in Bethlehem, then he need not enrol at all, since Galilee was a Roman province at that time.

There are so many stupid mistakes made by this gospel alone.

Imagine how many there must have been
before the editors got to it.

 

[gnostic]

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.

That’s your opinion.

The fact is that all 4 gospels originally had no names attached to them in the 1st century CE. In literary term, that’s called “attribute”, when someone else assigned a name to a book.

Tradition “attributed” Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus, but these were written probably as early as the late 7th century BCE. None of these books existed in the 2nd millennium BCE or late Bronze Age.

No one know who was the author of these books, but it certainly wasn’t written by Moses.

 

[shmogie]

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.

I am quite familiar with the history of Josephus. He was a contemporary writer as he was alive at the same time as those who knew Christ.

To state that the Gospels were written anonymously, and that names were not ascribed to the authors till the second century isn't true, and I would love to see your evidence for this.

The immediate post Apostolic Church Fathers, writing c. 140 AD address the Gospels by the names we know today as the authors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am quite familiar with the history of Josephus. He was a contemporary writer as he was alive at the same time as those who knew Christ.

To state that the Gospels were written anonymously, and that names were not ascribed to the authors till the second century isn't true, and I would love to see your evidence for this.

The immediate post Apostolic Church Fathers, writing c. 140 AD address the Gospels by the names we know today as the authors.

Sorry, but this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fact is that all four gospels were written anonymously. It was early church tradition that they were written by their purported authors. There is no evidence that they were written by whom tradition says wrote them. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is tantamount to you admitting that you are wrong.

And nice attempt to try to redefine "contemporary" . There is no reason to conclude that he even tried to contact anyone that knew Jesus. In fact from his very limited writing it appears he thought that the early Christians were only a small cult. Which at that time they were.

 

[ChristineM]

The Bronze Age story book (Genesis 49:10) "The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes and the allegiance of the nations
is his."
Shiloh is a name for the Messiah.
This Messiah would end the Israel nation
The scepter is a monarchy - for a nation that at that time didn't exist
The Law is the Law of Moses which ended with the Messiah
Until - meaning that the nation, its law and monarchy will have an end.
allegiance of the nations - Christianity

How did Jacob know this?
How did Isaiah know there would be TWO returns of the Jews to Israel,
and at a time when there hadn't been ONE exile?
How did Moses know the Jews would always be "few in number" despite
being quite numerous at the time?
How did Abraham know the Jews would be a blessing to the world?
I could go on...

god magic?

The fact remains

...began in the mid-20th century.[3] The origins to the conflict can be traced back to Jewish immigration, and sectarian conflict in Mandatory Palestine between Jews and Arabs.[4] It has been referred to as the world's "most intractable conflict", ...
Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia​

 

[Audie]

I am quite familiar with the history of Josephus. He was a contemporary writer as he was alive at the same time as those who knew Christ.

To state that the Gospels were written anonymously, and that names were not ascribed to the authors till the second century isn't true, and I would love to see your evidence for this.

The immediate post Apostolic Church Fathers, writing c. 140 AD address the Gospels by the names we know today as the authors.

Are you missing the idea that who scribbled what
when is trivial?
None of the supernatural checks out. Quite
the opposite.

Delete the supposed truth of the "god" stuff
and there is nothing left that is of much interest.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Without going into this video, what is the thrust of their argument?
I recall people saying that camels were not domesticated in Abraham's
day, so the camel story in Genesis didn't happen. It added to other
claims made against the bible that caused many to lose their faith in
the book. Later it turned out that camels WERE domesticated in
Abraham's day (long before actually) but that didn't bring people back
to believing in the bible.
Ultimately, there is a body of facts AND METHODS OF ARGUMENT
about the bible - some for and some against. Your typical "expert" will
pick for "against" and your typical believer will pick the "for."
That's all it is. The issue will remain forever on a tight rope.

The camel issue still holds muster as it's not an issue of domestication, but of when domesticated camels appeared regionally during the alleged time of Abraham and Christ. Also the alleged extermination of the Canaanites which clearly has shown to be untrue as well as there are descendants alive today.

It all has to do with how people piece fiction into fact.

 

[Shad]

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

Except for the fact that the site believed to be Troy based on the story was wrong. Calvert was the one that pointed Schlienman to the site not the book. You didn't bother with any research before making your statement.

 

[Audie]

Except for the fact that the site believed to be Troy based on the story was wrong. Calvert was the one that pointed Schlienman to the site not the book. You didn't bother with any research before making your statement.

Quelle surprise