I have been doing some research into the facts and real historical records of the holy scriptures. I always hear people saying about its severe lack of historical evidence and records so I took a look myself. I found out quite the opposite actualy where I expected to find hardly any real records I found many accounts.

Here are some interesting quotes and records to Start the thread off.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6


Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."3


Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.1 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."2


the Jewish Talmud, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."4


A piece of the Gospel of John exists in a Manchester library in England and is dated 125 A.D. - 35 years after John wrote his life of Jesus; in other words, some contemporaries of John would still have been alive when that actual piece of material was being passed from hand to hand!!


Papias, born in 60 A.D., records what the old apostle John told him about the writing of the gospels: "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered; though he did not record in order that which was done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and not as making a connective narrative of the Lord's discourses.' So Mark committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind. For he took heed to one thing, to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing falsely in his narrative of them."10


Irenaeus, who lived until 203 A.D., tells how Polycarp, who died in 154 A.D. "would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord and about His miracles and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate it altogether in accordance with the Scriptures."11


non-Christian historians like Porphyry, Celsus, Josephus, Pliny-- all confirm that the New Testament writers wrote truthfully about the events they observed personally in Israel in the first century.the text of this piece of John's gospel is corroborated by three great manuscripts containing most of the Bible: the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus dated from 350-450 A.D.

The Edom dig is described in Antiquity, a British archaeological quarterly, by Russell Adams of Canada's McMaster University; Thomas Levy of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues in Britain, Israel, Germany and Jordan. They report that pottery and radiocarbon dating of organic materials from a major copper mill in Jordan show settlement in the 11th century B.C. and perhaps earlier. An impressive fortress site, 80 yards square, dates to the 10th-century era of David and Solomon.


This doesn't explicitly support the Bible's references to Edom, Adams says, but does prove that the Edomites thrived in the 10th century, and that lends credibility to the biblical chronology. Dever has examined pottery from the site and is convinced that some is Israelite, indicating David's kingdom engaged in international trading.


This team reported in Science magazine in 2003 that radiocarbon dating of olive pits and charred grain from the site dates between 940 B.C. and 900 B.C. That fits snugly with Solomon's biblical kingdom and the Pharaoh Shishak's invasion five years after Solomon died (1 Kings 14:25-6).





Quotes taken from many sites and sources.

Add more feel free, discuss.


peace.

I have to information to respond to you with; but I refuse.

I refuse to respond until you change "Palestine" to "Israel"; I mean seriously. Even when they had a temple in Jerusalem it was actually Palestine?

Ok whatever, I will change the name and look through/edit it if it means so much to you.


-I edited the quote that somebody else wrote for you, can we continue now?.



peace.

Just so we're clear, one of Josephus' passages regarding Jesus has been known to be a hoax since the 18th century. The other, which does not really say anything about him other than that he is the brother of James, is disputed as well.

There were a bunch of far more influential and respected historians in that era that never once mention Jesus. Just something to think about.

Just so we're clear, one of Josephus' passages regarding Jesus has been known to be a hoax since the 18th century. The other, which does not really say anything about him other than that he is the brother of James, is disputed as well.

There were a bunch of far more influential and respected historians in that era that never once mention Jesus. Just something to think about.

Ok, and wht of every other piece of documentation and recorded history?. thats a single account what of the rest?.

compared to many other classic historical figures the new testemant has more sources to refer to.

peace.

Ok, and wht of every other piece of documentation and recorded history?. thats a single account what of the rest?.

compared to many other classic historical figures the new testemant has more sources to refer to.


I have not done all the research on NT. What little I've done has been in regards to Jesus. I'll get back to you on that.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6

In 2000 years does that mean Gone with the wind will be true? There's a lot of copies out there. Also, look at how many copies of the Mormon bible are out there. There were a lot of writings throughout history; these copies of the New Testament were distributed, not created over time.



Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."3

Is it potentially possible that Flavius learned that through the grapevine?



Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.1 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."2

Those "Christians" he is referring to is actually a sect of Jewish Messianics unrelated to Jesus. They've become somewhat tucked away in history, but during that time there was a Messianic uprising which was quickly smashed down by the Romans, virtually slaughtering all of them. That's why they are called "Christians" = "Messianics"



the Jewish Talmud, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."4

Talmud does not concur, I would like to know what tractate you're citing. Talmud talks about a guy who was a bastardized mumzer who was full of blasphemy, there's no evidence it was Jesus.



A piece of the Gospel of John exists in a Manchester library in England and is dated 125 A.D. - 35 years after John wrote his life of Jesus; in other words, some contemporaries of John would still have been alive when that actual piece of material was being passed from hand to hand!!

No one is claiming John or Paul don't exist...they're claiming that they were sacm artists.



Papias, born in 60 A.D., records what the old apostle John told him about the writing of the gospels: "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered; though he did not record in order that which was done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and not as making a connective narrative of the Lord's discourses.' So Mark committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind. For he took heed to one thing, to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing falsely in his narrative of them."10

How's that evidence that he lived?



Irenaeus, who lived until 203 A.D., tells how Polycarp, who died in 154 A.D. "would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord and about His miracles and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate it altogether in accordance with the Scriptures."11

Again...not proof.



non-Christian historians like Porphyry, Celsus, Josephus, Pliny-- all confirm that the New Testament writers wrote truthfully about the events they observed personally in Israel in the first century.the text of this piece of John's gospel is corroborated by three great manuscripts containing most of the Bible: the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus dated from 350-450 A.D.

It would be easy to account for events occurring; for example if the New Testament were actually Roman Propaganda...hmmm?

See, considering that Chi is citing the Flavious reference as truth, when it is known to be a fabrication, I have to question his entire post. It's too bad I'm not informed enough on NT truth vs fabrication to comment...

But this about sums up how I feel about this:


In 2000 years does that mean Gone with the wind will be true?

Burrrrrrn!

Ok, and wht of every other piece of documentation and recorded history?. thats a single account what of the rest?.

compared to many other classic historical figures the new testemant has more sources to refer to.

peace.
Then you need to check out these by Iasion all alleged evidence for a jesus person totally refuted, and with verifiable links.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654

I have not done all the research on NT. What little I've done has been in regards to Jesus. I'll get back to you on that.

Ok sure, I'm still doing some myself aswell.


peace.

In 2000 years does that mean Gone with the wind will be true? There's a lot of copies out there. Also, look at how many copies of the Mormon bible are out there. There were a lot of writings throughout history; these copies of the New Testament were distributed, not created over time.


Is it potentially possible that Flavius learned that through the grapevine?


Those "Christians" he is referring to is actually a sect of Jewish Messianics unrelated to Jesus. They've become somewhat tucked away in history, but during that time there was a Messianic uprising which was quickly smashed down by the Romans, virtually slaughtering all of them. That's why they are called "Christians" = "Messianics"


Talmud does not concur, I would like to know what tractate you're citing. Talmud talks about a guy who was a bastardized mumzer who was full of blasphemy, there's no evidence it was Jesus.


No one is claiming John or Paul don't exist...they're claiming that they were sacm artists.


How's that evidence that he lived?


Again...not proof.


It would be easy to account for events occurring; for example if the New Testament were actually Roman Propaganda...hmmm?


Im not saying anything is evidence, Im saying it has recorded documented history with the same status of many other historical accounts we hold as history.




peace.

Then you need to check out these by Iasion all alleged evidence for a jesus person totally refuted, and with verifiable links.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654The first link is just a great bit of research.

The first link is just a great bit of research.Yes I often use it myself. (obviously giving full credit to Iasion.)
A very well researched post.

The first link is just a great bit of research.

It is just a cut and paste with personal opinion thrown in.

One thing to consider is that no historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person.

Unless we come up with some.

Note: I am not inferring anything beyond existence.

One thing to consider is that no historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person.

Are you serious?

What do you think?

Name some.

Then you need to check out these by Iasion all alleged evidence for a jesus person totally refuted, and with verifiable links.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654


I read them all and it still stands to have much more documented histopry than many other classic historical figures that we see as real figures of history.

We hold many ancient philosophers as real people even though they don't have real evidence of existing other than a few recorded documentations from outside sources refering to thier lives.

The top link that Liason wrote has lots of personal opinion put into the facts. basically saying "he reffered to christ, so did he, so did he, so did he, but they are liars and thats not proof".


The fact is that by our standards of acceptance of other philosophers and figures of history, jesus holds more documentation than some we teach as factual existing figures.


It is too much personal opinion with sayings like "It was probabl;y a forged document, it is suspicious, it might not be true". Either they are proved to be forged or are not, many things are suspicious but we should be dealing with facts not assumptions or tainted opinions of people with agendas, if they are proven to be forged and fake then we class and write them off as false, if they are not proved to be false 100% then you should not portray them to be fakes unless they actualy 100% are.


How many historical figures who have far less documentation and records than jesus do we hold as true walking people that once lived?.


peace.


peace.

Didn't Plutarch write the life of alexanfer 350-400 yeaars after the death of the king?, I know there is 3-4 other sources for alexanders existence but they all came hundreds of years later. None of his sources were eye witnesses. Granted alexander left huge impact on people as evidence through his war mongering, but it seems jesus has left a far greater impact that could be held at the same level of evidence?.

what about Plato?.

peace.

At best just a man, and maybe a martyr... A god i see nothing to prove it. Miracles are just stories. And for Christians it matters not if he existed or not, as they have already made their minds up as to what is true.

It is just a cut and paste with personal opinion thrown in.

It *is* copy/pasted, but only because Iasion created the text and posted it elswhere before posting here. He is the original author of the text as near as I can tell. So, with that said, the entire thing is his opinion and perspective. So far, those opinions and perspectives appear to hold as premises, claims, and assertions.


One thing to consider is that no historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person.

Gilgamesh. King Arthur. Several Mesoamerican figures. Even recent American figures of Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, John Smith, and others have had their "histories" hyped & retold to the point that they are no longer the same individual. Perhaps this Jesus character is much the same -a regular guy, mortal in all respects who inspired a few people who hyped his importance and elevated him to a supernatural level. The word deified fits very well in that case.

Gilgamesh. King Arthur. Several Mesoamerican figures. Even recent American figures of Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, John Smith, and others have had their "histories" hyped & retold to the point that they are no longer the same individual. Perhaps this Jesus character is much the same -a regular guy, mortal in all respects who inspired a few people who hyped his importance and elevated him to a supernatural level. The word deified fits very well in that case.

I always thought that King Arthur is fictional, at least that is what i was taught and it was never an issue.


Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, John Smith

So then we agree because they were actual people. Perhaps you meant Joseph Smith because i am not sure which John Smith you mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Boone

The point that i was trying to make is that Jesus has made an incredible impact, probably in the top three of influential people. This is not my opinion but it is fact and these people are impossible to make up. The reason i know this is because it has never been done before. Even your own post acknowledges that actual people were used for inspiration and i really have no reason to believe that is not the case here.

As far as Gilgamesh, it is my understanding that he was a real person also but i am not too familiar with his history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh

Iason seems to be asking for proof like seeing a youtube video. If that is the case then i say none of the people you listed where actual people. Even though they were.

I have to information to respond to you with; but I refuse.

I refuse to respond until you change "Palestine" to "Israel"; I mean seriously. Even when they had a temple in Jerusalem it was actually Palestine?

There was no Israel either, at the time. At least, it was PRESENT DAY Palestine.:rolleyes:

I read them all and it still stands to have much more documented history than many other classic historical figures that we see as real figures of history.Where.

The top link that iasion wrote has lots of personal opinion put into the facts. basically saying "he referred to Christ, so did he, so did he, so did he, but they are liars and thats not proof".Well of course, we are all allowed a little artistic licence. However it is still verifiable.

The fact is that by our standards of acceptance of other philosophers and figures of history, Jesus holds more documentation than some we teach as factual existing figures.Where.

It is too much personal opinion with sayings like "It was probably a forged document, it is suspicious, it might not be true". Either they are proved to be forged or are not, many things are suspicious but we should be dealing with facts not assumptions or tainted opinions of people with agendas, if they are proven to be forged and fake then we class and write them off as false, if they are not proved to be false 100% then you should not portray them to be fakes unless they actually 100% are.Not so, when it holds so much water. There are no such thing as absolutes, there is always a modicum of doubt in everything, we have to accept that.

The first writings of Jesus mention him purely as a 'heavenly' person rather than someone on Earth who did all these bizarre things. Isn't that strange? Wouldn't the "Earthly" Jesus be someone you write about first?

It's not until decades later the "Earthly" Jesus is written about in some detail. This tells me that the details were later added through years of preaching to gullible crowds.

The first writings of Jesus mention him purely as a 'heavenly' person rather than someone on Earth who did all these bizarre things. Isn't that strange? Wouldn't the "Earthly" Jesus be someone you write about first?


Which writings are you referring to? The main thing is that not many things were written down during those times due to no paper or pens. My whole contention is that based purely on logic it is reasonable to conclude, as i have outlined, that at the very least the person did exist. Anything else is up to the individual to believe.

The first writings of Jesus mention him purely as a 'heavenly' person rather than someone on Earth who did all these bizarre things. Isn't that strange? Wouldn't the "Earthly" Jesus be someone you write about first?

It's not until decades later the "Earthly" Jesus is written about in some detail. This tells me that the details were later added through years of preaching to gullible crowds.
*************
M*W: Whooda thunk it? Your post really makes sense. It was no different 2000 years ago that it is today. Two words--media hype comes to mind. Embellishing on stories about this "heavenly" guy was what the people of that day wanted to hear... and the stories (i.e. myths) of Jesus snowballed. Every age needs its heroes. Fortunately for the modern world, the hero Jesus is riding off into the sunset on a camel.

Greetings EmptyForceOfChi,


I have been doing some research into the facts and real historical records of the holy scriptures. I always hear people saying about its severe lack of historical evidence and records so I took a look myself. I found out quite the opposite actualy where I expected to find hardly any real records I found many accounts.

Please be careful to distinguish between history OF the scriptures versus history IN the scriptures.



Here are some interesting quotes and records to Start the thread off.
Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6


Let's not confuse confuse two UN-related issues -
* reliability of the text,
* truthfulness of the contents.

Firstly, it is not true that the NT is "the best-attested document in all of antiquity" because there are some documents even older than the NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g. Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone, the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested from the original because they ARE the original, and thus much better attested than the NT.
http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html

It's true the NT is fairly well-attested (in terms of quantity) compared to SOME ancient writings - in the sense that we have many old copies (24,000 or more in total). However the vast majority of these copies are from the middle-ages. The number of NT manuscripts from before the dark ages is about a hundred.
http://faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/documents/nmbr_manuscripts.pdf


But more importantly, this argument implies that because we have so many copies - this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not so - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider -

* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?
* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents.


Hmmm..
Reading ahead, I see my work on this has already been cited.
Thanks all :-)
I appreciate your comments.

I'll consider if any further responses are needed.


Iasion

Hi all,


It is just a cut and paste with personal opinion thrown in.

I beg your pardon?
I wrote that essay myself, and posted it here myself.
What exactly does "just a cut and paste" mean please?
Sure, I copied and pasted it from my editor to this screen.
So what?
Please withdraw your insulting implication of plagiarism.



One thing to consider is that no historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person.

You must be joking?

What about -
Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, David etc.
John Frum (cargo cult)
Molly Pitcher (civil war)
Don Juan (from Carlos Castaneda)
Ebion (mythical founder of the Ebionites)
Odysseus, Hercules, Ajax
Krishna
Zoroaster
Hermes
etc. etc.


Iasion

Hiya,


I read them all and it still stands to have much more documented histopry than many other classic historical figures that we see as real figures of history.

Really?
I showed nearly all of the alleged "evidences" for Jesus do not stand up to scrutiny.
WHICH of these do you now still consider good evidence for Jesus?
Please be specific.



We hold many ancient philosophers as real people even though they don't have real evidence of existing other than a few recorded documentations from outside sources refering to thier lives.

We examine each case for evidence. Some of the ancient philophers may not have existed.
But here - we are discussing the evidence for Jesus. A god-man with supernatural powers. But who left no contemporary historical evidence of any kind.




The top link that Liason wrote has lots of personal opinion put into the facts. basically saying "he reffered to christ, so did he, so did he, so did he, but they are liars and thats not proof".

The inablity to read properly that is all too typical in believers.
My name is Iasion. Not Liason.

Furthermore, I did NOT say they are liars.
In fact I did NOT ONCE use the word "liar".

Yes, some of the writings mentioned ARE known forgeries. Others are late beliefs, others are simply not about Jesus.

But EmptyForceOfChi simply ignores my arguments and pretends I call them all liars. How sad.



The fact is that by our standards of acceptance of other philosophers and figures of history, jesus holds more documentation than some we teach as factual existing figures.

This is not a fact at all.
Just a favourite belief of apologists.
How about an example, EmptyForce?




It is too much personal opinion with sayings like "It was probabl;y a forged document, it is suspicious, it might not be true". Either they are proved to be forged or are not, many things are suspicious but we should be dealing with facts not assumptions or tainted opinions of people with agendas, if they are proven to be forged and fake then we class and write them off as false, if they are not proved to be false 100% then you should not portray them to be fakes unless they actualy 100% are.

I cited facts which can be checked.
The documents I called forgeries are considered to be so by mainstream scholarship.

Why have you still not argued for which of these you still believe as evidence for Jesus?

Please present your modified case - in the face of my analysis, which references do you still argue are historical evidence for Jesus?


Iasion

Hi all,


Didn't Plutarch write the life of alexanfer 350-400 yeaars after the death of the king?, I know there is 3-4 other sources for alexanders existence but they all came hundreds of years later.

We have direct contemporary historical evidence for Alexander, including :
* the Esagila diary
* coins showing his face
* cities founded by him

Nothing like that for Jesus.



but it seems jesus has left a far greater impact that could be held at the same level of evidence?.

Jesus, himself,
had NO IMPACT at all on anyone or anything.

We have NO evidence of anyone who ever met Jesus.
We have no contemporary evidence of his existance.
We have no historical evidence of the Gospel events.

What we DO have is BELIEF about Jesus LATER having a huge impact.

Believers can't seem to see the difference.



what about Plato?.

What about him?
Plato is a completely plausible figure for whom we have contemporary evidence and writings from his own hand.
We have nothing like that for the god-man Jesus with supernatural powers.


Iasion

You are just throwing names out for the sake of throwing names out. The only way to do this is to discuss each on their own.

Don Juan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan


Don Juan (Spanish) and Don Giovanni (Italian) is a legendary, fictional libertine whose story has been told many times by many writers.

I will add to this in a little while but feel free to go into more detail on one person you listed.

You cannot be serious with including Adam and Eve in your list.

We have direct contemporary historical evidence for Alexander, including :
* the Esagila diary
* coins showing his face
* cities founded by him

Nothing like that for Jesus.

Why would Jesus have a coin bearing his image or any of those things you mentioned. He was not a ruler or an emperor.


What about him?
Plato is a completely plausible figure for whom we have contemporary evidence and writings from his own hand.
We have nothing like that for the god-man Jesus with supernatural powers.


First of all, no one mentioned supernatural powers except for you. We are only debating the existence of the man himself. We can include the crucifixion or capital punishment in this but not your logical fallacies.

So you accept Plato because someone signed a paper somewhere with his name on it? From your point of view and skepticism on past historical figures i dont think that you should. You do history an injustice with ever post you make.

I also believe Muhammad (the founder of Islam) existed. Do you?

I see no reason to doubt that Krishna existed and certainly see no reason to doubt that Mary Hays McCauly existed either.

Why dont you just tell everyone who existed and who did not, depending on how you feel, and we will make the revisions according to Iason.

You realize that if you do not come up with one historical figure who was said to be an actual person and turned out to not be an actual person then you will need to either withdraw your essay or add a disclaimer with my name attached. And i will write the disclaimer.

Robin Hood :)

Where.

Firstly the collection of eye witness accounts written down by the disciples of jesus which form the gospels and new testament. Which remain largely untampered from old greek translations over this amount of time many scholars back this claim. I understand that king james and many people have tmpered with the translations and corrupted it in alot of places but the basic point stands about the referal of jesus as a real historical figure.

Ontop of that there is both secular and non secular documentation, from even those who opposed christians. If you refer to the OP I suggested accounts and gave sources of documentations of jesus as a living person recorded by individuals of that era and time period. I am digging up more now over the days to come.




Well of course, we are all allowed a little artistic licence. However it is still verifiable.

Well yes but im trying to deal with historical facts in the same manner as historians and scholars, to try and determine if he was a real historical figure. Opinions are great and I have many myself but Im trying to atleast aim for educated and well imformed theory and detective work rather than agenda fueled stabs from one side of the debate or another. I realise as this is a religious sourced historical base of events that may or may not have took place, it's going to be tainted with many people using one sided opinion based assumptions.


Where.

Well for example if you look at plato, you will find he has less impact, documentation, referal and intact records of existence than jesus actualy does. Im comparing realistic status of how we view figures of the past in comparison with non acceptence of jesus and such people of religious backgrounds. I never question platos existence but I do with jesus, I think it is due to the feats people claim jesus performed like miracles and the likes of that sort of thing. So we take it less seriously obviously because seeing is believing. History is exagerated all the time, changed and reformed to suit the winners.





Not so, when it holds so much water. There are no such thing as absolutes, there is always a modicum of doubt in everything, we have to accept that.



Absolutes are not things I like dealing with in many debates in particular subjects, but im saying that suspicion is not the same as proof of forgery. It is true known fact that the bible and its scriptures have been tampered with and corrupted. If you look at all of the intact new testament writtings it still is a very solid documentation of a persons life with variable sources of eye witness account and secular and non secular references to back them up, along with places and findings of acheological discovery that match dates and names, for example king solomons reign and empire has been partialy uncovered and experts in the field matched dates references and the sorts nearly perfectly to old testament sources. Also the findings in 1975 by a team that uncovered the 16,000/17,000 tablets of the ancient city , with the names of the people written about in the bible, with there fathers names and there fathers names, the dates, locations and periods all check out accurately, more findings will maybe be uncovered to shed better light on things, but my point is that it's actualy got pretty decent findings and documentation not just a mere myth in the ranks of other mythical stories that we tell as stories.

peace

I agree with all of you! Yay tenitis.

Greetings EmptyForceOfChi,

Hey greetings to you too :),





Please be careful to distinguish between history OF the scriptures versus history IN the scriptures.

I wasn't confusing the two, I understand the key differenes. I think the scriptures also should be used as historical documentation due to the fact that they are texts documenting the life of a man from n eye witness acount.





Let's not confuse confuse two UN-related issues -
* reliability of the text,
* truthfulness of the contents.

Firstly, it is not true that the NT is "the best-attested document in all of antiquity" because there are some documents even older than the NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g. Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone, the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested from the original because they ARE the original, and thus much better attested than the NT.
http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html

The truthfulness of the scriptures is suspect and I doubt can ever be counted as proof of anything, I do agree with you that they are not the best in original antiquity, although scraps of remains of the original stone tablets are held in england. The amount of the original scrips are a poor quantity but they do exist and were whole at some point, so that is in favour of them not being entirely fabricated later on in history.



It's true the NT is fairly well-attested (in terms of quantity) compared to SOME ancient writings - in the sense that we have many old copies (24,000 or more in total). However the vast majority of these copies are from the middle-ages. The number of NT manuscripts from before the dark ages is about a hundred.
http://faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/documents/nmbr_manuscripts.pdf

Yes I was reading up on this yesteday afternoon, Do you know the date of the oldest known copy fully intact?.


But more importantly, this argument implies that because we have so many copies - this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not so - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider

I don't believe the Dr, at Oxford was implying it must be true because we have so many copies, more leaning towards saying its impact was huge and has a very widespread number of copies which for the time was amazing and a one off nearly. I don't see it as proof of anything in terms of the contents but I thought the best place to start looking was in the scriptures itself, then linking it with outside sources.




* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?
* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents.

I don't support that it gives support to the truthfulness of its contents.


Hmmm..
Reading ahead, I see my work on this has already been cited.
Thanks all :-)
I appreciate your comments.

I'll consider if any further responses are needed.


Iasion


Thanks for the well layed out reply.


peace.

Hiya,

Wasup.




Really?
I showed nearly all of the alleged "evidences" for Jesus do not stand up to scrutiny.
WHICH of these do you now still consider good evidence for Jesus?
Please be specific.

Yes I read through your points, I don't class many things as real evidence reality is one matter (for another thread), I'm trying to find evidence for his life I have not concluded anything yet its a new project of mine. After reading your points I still don't see a difference in my views in favour or not in favour.

So far it appears many individuals have faintly suggested a person of a jesus type figure causing trouble, but did not refer to him as jesus of nazereth. Some of the biblical locations, kingdoms and certain individuals have been discovered in dig's which gives some truth to stories atleast in geographical terms.

I'm still early on in my research, further behind than you obviously maybe we could help each other or something.



We examine each case for evidence. Some of the ancient philophers may not have existed.
But here - we are discussing the evidence for Jesus. A god-man with supernatural powers. But who left no contemporary historical evidence of any kind.

Thats the point, and im trying to find out the truth.







The inablity to read properly that is all too typical in believers.
My name is Iasion. Not Liason.

Furthermore, I did NOT say they are liars.
In fact I did NOT ONCE use the word "liar".

I'm not sure if I said you said they are liars, maybe I did. If you didn't and I did I take it back. Liason is better, you are Liason now and im not a believer Im a Daoist that kind of believs in a god but kind of does not sometimes. Sometimes I don't like God sometimes he is my friend sometimes Im an agnostic atheist, depends on my mood and the fung shui.


Yes, some of the writings mentioned ARE known forgeries. Others are late beliefs, others are simply not about Jesus.

I am looking into the forgery claims currently, I will get back to you on that. The ones you say are not about jesus might or might not be, the christians being tourtured sound very like jesus and his followers to me, time period matches up and names are very simular sounding. The ones that are late beliefs are people claiming they knew people who were close to jesus and wrote the words of the friends of jesus down.



But EmptyForceOfChi simply ignores my arguments and pretends I call them all liars. How sad.

Hey Im not ignoring them, im actualy reading up on your arguments because I need information before I can post. Lets debate on good terms without hostility or it will not flow good.




This is not a fact at all.
Just a favourite belief of apologists.

Maybe.


How about an example, EmptyForce? Do you want an example of Empty Force? wave your hand infront of your face and describe what you are moving your hand through in detail. If not then I will give exmples of stuff in this debate thats to do with this subject.






I cited facts which can be checked.

I know im checking them.


The documents I called forgeries are considered to be so by mainstream scholarship.
I am also looking into this, See Above


Why have you still not argued for which of these you still believe as evidence for Jesus?

Im trying to it's hard when your not motivated by your own opinion and agenda, (im seriously not implying anything) Im just looking for the truth I don't posess evidence or proof but im looking for it or atleast a conclusion to it of some sort.


Please present your modified case - in the face of my analysis, which references do you still argue are historical evidence for Jesus?

I would say that the original scripts written by his disciples as eye witness accounts, combined with geographical correctness and economical references of the accounts in the regions, with references aimed at jesus and his followers by nuetral figures amounts to some form of loose basis to form some evidence maybe.

It's going better than I thought it would, I didnt expect any type of references or evidence atall or documentations.



Lasion


Peace.

[...] the collection of eye witness accounts written down by the disciples of jesus which form the gospels and new testament. Which remain largely untampered from old greek translations over this amount of time many scholars back this claim.

What's the oldest, dated version of a New Testament gospel and what's the evidence that it was written by one of the alleged Christ's original (but alleged) disciples?

Hi everybody,

Hi Dr nick




We have direct contemporary historical evidence for Alexander, including :
* the Esagila diary
* coins showing his face
* cities founded by him

Nothing like that for Jesus.

Yes that is more solid evidence actualy, although jesus does have as many writtings about him from his era.




Jesus, himself,
had NO IMPACT at all on anyone or anything.

I don't see how that is true, even if he was fictional he has impacted billions even as a story legend today even.


We have NO evidence of anyone who ever met Jesus.

Remains of the original scripts of one of his disciples survives still today in england, that would be documents of an eye witness to jesus.


We have no contemporary evidence of his existance

I have not concluded that yet.


We have no historical evidence of the Gospel events.
Battles and events recorded in the biblical scripts were found to be true matching the time period and discription of geographical locations. of the New testament stories of jesus I have not found any eventual evidence that took place, apart from references to a group of people who sound very much like his disciples and followers being crucified and tourtured.


What we DO have is BELIEF about Jesus LATER having a huge impact.
His impact seemed localized by word of mouth int he time of his life, if he existed. later on after the gospels were written it seemed to have spread like wild-fire.


Believers can't seem to see the difference.

maybe some can and some can't I cannot speak for so many individuals.




What about him?
Plato is a completely plausible figure for whom we have contemporary evidence and writings from his own hand.
We have nothing like that for the god-man Jesus with supernatural powers.


We do have writings from the hand of jesus disciples with pieces of the originals still in our hands today. I have not found as many references to plato after a little looking.




Iasion

peace.

What's the oldest, dated version of a New Testament gospel and what's the evidence that it was written by one of the alleged Christ's original (but alleged) disciples?


125 A.D I believe is one of the oldest dates of original gospel scriptures, well somebody could have pretended they were a disciple and wrote it. What is the proof of any philosopher actualy writting his work and not under a false guise.


peace.

Robin Hood :)
*************
M*W: A farce on the RCC! Robin (red) hood (cap) as in cardinal, Maid Marian, Friar Tuck... all RCC symbolism. Myth.

Which writings are you referring to?

The earliest layers :
* Paul
* pseudo-Paul
* Hebrews
* James, John, Peter, Jude
* Clement
* Barnabas
all show no mention of the life of Jesus or the Gospel events - just spiritual references to a risen Christ.

Later, mid-early 2nd century the Gospels appear, and after that everyone starts talking about the life of Jesus.

But before that, the earliest Christians seem to know the LEAST about Jesus. Have a look at this fabulous :-) table :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~desmodeu/Christianity/Table.html

Note how knowledge of the Gospel stories are absent from the early writings, then turn into a flood after the Gospels appear.


Iasion

Hiya,

John99 wrote :


One thing to consider is that no historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person.

All we have to do is produce ONE such person and your claim is proven false.

More than one of us has listed several such examples.
This claim is thus clearly shown false.




Don Juan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan

Why do you think I put "(Carlos Castaneda)" in brackets.
So readers would know WHICH Don Juan I meant.
You ignored that key fact and then got the WRONG one.
D'oh.




You cannot be serious with including Adam and Eve in your list.

Competely serious.
Because for a good MILLENIUM or so, they WERE believed as actual persons - the mainstream did indeed "pass them off as actual persons". There are STILL people who believe so - some on THIS very forum.

I see you just ignored my other examples.
Because they showed you wrong.


Iasion

Hi all,


Why would Jesus have a coin bearing his image or any of those things you mentioned. He was not a ruler or an emperor.

Please don't play silly games.
The issue is whether we have contemporary historical evidence for Alexander, as compared to Jesus - NOT whether we do, or should have, coins showing Jesus.


We DO have contemporary historical evidence (e.g. coins and other things) for Alexander.

We do NOT have ANY contemporary historical evidence for Jesus of any kind (while coins are probably not applicable to Jesus, other normal items of history certainly are.)



First of all, no one mentioned supernatural powers except for you.

Oh, you haven't heard of the Gospels?
They are full of stories of supernatural powers of Jesus.
Nearly all of the Christian writings attribute all sorts of supernatural, magic, even divine powers to Jesus.

Our stories of the Life of Jesus come 99% from the Gospels.
The Gospels have a Jesus with supernatural powers, nothing like a normal human - THAT is why we doubt his existance more than someone normal.



We are only debating the existence of the man himself. We can include the crucifixion or capital punishment in this but not your logical fallacies.

You have yet to produce any evidence for his existence,
nor evidence of any fallacies by me.



So you accept Plato because someone signed a paper somewhere with his name on it? From your point of view and skepticism on past historical figures i dont think that you should. You do history an injustice with ever post you make.

No, stop this silly talk.
We accept Plato because on balance the evidence argues for it, including CONTEMPORARY historical evidence, including writings FROM Plato.

The situation with Jesus is completely different.




I also believe Muhammad (the founder of Islam) existed. Do you?

Yup.
But,
there IS a minority view he did not exist - did you know that?
There is actually little contemporary hard evidence for him.
But on balance, I would say he did.


Iasion

Hiya,


You realize that if you do not come up with one historical figure who was said to be an actual person and turned out to not be an actual person then you will need to either withdraw your essay or add a disclaimer with my name attached. And i will write the disclaimer.

I cited several.
Another poster cited several.
Clear evidence your claim is wrong.

You just simply IGNORED the evidence that showed you wrong!
Then proclaimed victory!

What a shockingly dishonest cad you are.

I am sure readers will understand if I stop talking with this fool.


Iasion

Hiya,


Firstly the collection of eye witness accounts written down by the disciples of jesus which form the gospels and new testament.

None of the NT was written by any eye-witness.
That is the consensus of modern NT scholars (Brown, Ehrman, Metzger, etc.)




Ontop of that there is both secular and non secular documentation, from even those who opposed christians.

None of which stands up to scrutiny.



If you refer to the OP I suggested accounts and gave sources of documentations of jesus as a living person recorded by individuals of that era and time period. I am digging up more now over the days to come.

If you refer to my post, you will see all these "sources" debunked.




bible and its scriptures have been tampered with and corrupted.
...
very solid documentation

Riiiight.
Tampered and corrupt (and forged.)
But still "very solid documentation".
Very convincing.



of a persons life with variable sources of eye witness account

None of the NT is by eye-witnesses.
That is the consensus of modern NT scholars.
If you think otherwise, feel free to present a case.



and secular and non secular references to back them up,

None of which stands up to scrutiny.



along with places and findings of acheological discovery that match dates and names,

SOME do. Many don't. So what?
James Bond has some real places etc.
Harry Potter has real places.
So what?



for example king solomons reign and empire has been partialy uncovered

False.
There is NO EVIDENCE of ANY kind for King Solomon.
None. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Note that (as usual) EmptyForce fails to present any evidence for his claims - if there WAS evidence for King Solomon it would be WORLD FAMOUS as the very FIRST to be found. There is no such evidence.

My prediction - EmptyForce will fail to produce any actual evidence for this claim - if he comes up with ANYTHING, it will a web-site of some crack-pot who claims some rock or something or other is from King Solomon.


and experts in the field matched dates references and the sorts nearly perfectly to old testament sources.

The NT makes numerous errors of geography, culture, chronology.



Also the findings in 1975 by a team that uncovered the 16,000/17,000 tablets of the ancient city , with the names of the people written about in the bible, with there fathers names and there fathers names, the dates, locations and periods all check out accurately, more findings will maybe be uncovered to shed better light on things, but my point is that it's actualy got pretty decent findings and documentation not just a mere myth in the ranks of other mythical stories that we tell as stories.

Really?
Why can't you ever cite any evidence?
Just vague stories.


Iasion

Hi all,


although scraps of remains of the original stone tablets are held in england.

Rubbish.
We have NO original copies of any Binle works.



The amount of the original scrips are a poor quantity but they do exist

False.
They do NOT exist.
We have NO originals of any kind for NT or OT.



Yes I was reading up on this yesteday afternoon, Do you know the date of the oldest known copy fully intact?.

The oldest essentially intact Bibles would be the famous 4th century codexes like Aleph, A, and B. Although they are not quite 100% like our modern bibles.
Have a look at this lovely facsimile of Vaticanus (B) :
http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm
Yours for under $10K.


Iasion

Hi all,



Remains of the original scripts of one of his disciples survives still today in england, that would be documents of an eye witness to jesus.

No they don't.
Why do you keep saying things like this which are demonstrably false?
Don't you ever check?

You appear to be just regurgitating apologetics without checking the facts.



We do have writings from the hand of jesus disciples with pieces of the originals still in our hands today.

*sigh*
No.
We do NOT.

Please stop making a fool of yourself.
Anyone who has done the slightest study on this subject would know this is complete nonsense. It's almost like claiming we have the true cross, or the staff of Aaron, or the 1/2 eaten apple of Adam and Eve.


Iasion

Hi all,


125 A.D I believe is one of the oldest dates of original gospel scriptures,

Firstly,
it is NOT original.

Secondly,
it is not accurate to say baldly "125A.D.".

The famous P52 is dated variously:
* 2nd century (100-199)
* early 2nd century (100-149)
* 170 +/- 25 (145-195)

MSS can NOT be dated to a single year, but a range - typically 100, or sometimes 50 years.

P52 could be as late as 195.


Finally,
P52 is a tiny fragment no bigger than a hand. Here is a picture of it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52


Iasion

Everything mr chi.. that you are writing, is basically wrong. Couple of examples offhand. The Josephus reference is a fake, Tacitus (I have all his work) wrote about "Christos" (annointed one).. no mention of the big J there anywhere (and there where dozens of "Christos" walking around back in those days), and he referred to a specific group.

The disciples didnt write the Gospels, the first one was written after the deaths of the disciples. Jesus didnt need or endorse a Bible, and neither did the Christians for the first couple of hundred years of Christianity.

Please research your information more carefully. Its terribly wrong.

Hi Dr nick


Who is Dr. Nick?

Iason, pick one person to concentrate on. So far all the people mentioned where either easily proven to be actual people who had stories built around them or entirely fictional characters.

All i am saying is that it is conceivable to build a myth that is meant to be taken as literal fact around an actual person and actual events and not from a fictional character. This is being borne out as this thread progresses. The reason i am so sure about this is because this is because that is historically how things work.

Again, you cannot ask me to prove that Adam and Eve existed. If i could do that then I would declare myself to be God and we would be finished here.

Followers Of Jesus Christ were called Christians from the onset. Where do you think the name came from?

Another thing is that people who were\are considered to be spiritually on another level have existed throughout history. I can name dozens of them off the top of my head. The main thing is that your premise is without merit because it does not follow historical precedence and is not even logical.


“
Originally Posted by John99
"I also believe Muhammad (the founder of Islam) existed. Do you?"

Yup.
But,
there IS a minority view he did not exist - did you know that?
There is actually little contemporary hard evidence for him.
But on balance, I would say he did.


What do you base that on? and "yup" is not very convincing.

Like i said i have no reason to doubt he existed but you are just picking and choosing based on how you feel.

Do you honestly think that out of nowhere someone can say that "before you were born there was this person named Muhammad and now you have to follow everything he said." One thing that needs to be considered is that these things develop throughout generations and they always begin with an actual person.

And if i criticize a post you make dont take it personally and call me names because that is just childish.

Then you need to check out these by Iasion all alleged evidence for a jesus person totally refuted, and with verifiable links.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654

You have been trawling through some ancient documents here. 2006! that was ages ago.
Before I was ever thought of on sf.

Can anyone remember why IceageCivilisations was banned? (link one)
6000+ posts and then banned?
Maybe he murdered someone.

Iason,

At this time i would like to add one more name to the discussion.

Lucretius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius


Very little is known about Lucretius's life. One source of information is St. Jerome, writing 400 years after Lucretius's death and with a possible desire to discredit him. He mentions Lucretius in the Chronica Eusebii. Here we find the following notice: "Titus Lucretius the poet is born. Later he was driven mad by a love potion, and when, during the intervals of his insanity, he had written a number of books, which were later emended by Cicero, he killed himself by his own hand in the 44th year of his life." In most manuscripts this notice is entered under the year 94 BC, but in others under 93 or 96. This gives us the following alternative dates for Lucretius' life and death: 96-53/52, 94-51/50, and 93-50/49.

You have been trawling through some ancient documents here. 2006! that was ages ago.
Before I was ever thought of on sf.
Maybe he murdered someone.Yes, and still not refuted.

Aside from the rabid popularity of the religion given his name, there is no historical evidence that Jesus really existed. That is the plainest way to put it; you can philosophize all you like, but there's no evidence.

Hi all,



Rubbish.
We have NO original copies of any Binle works.




False.
They do NOT exist.
We have NO originals of any kind for NT or OT.




The oldest essentially intact Bibles would be the famous 4th century codexes like Aleph, A, and B. Although they are not quite 100% like our modern bibles.
Have a look at this lovely facsimile of Vaticanus (B) :
http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm
Yours for under $10K.


Iasion


Friday April 18, 2003

Scholars excavate proof of Kings David and Solomon

JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
Jerusalem Post Service

JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by King David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has been affirmed by laboratory tests on archeological samples from excavations near Beit She'an.

The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular significance to the running debate among archeologists about the authenticity of the biblical account of the two kings, and the period and extent of their reign.

The distinguished Hebrew University archeologist, the late Professor Yigael Yadin, argued more than 40 years ago that a series of monumental structures and particularly the city gates of Hatzor, Megiddo and Gezer as well as certain Megiddo palaces were founded by Solomon, as recorded in the First Book of Kings (9:15). However, in the 1990s various scholars criticized this view, claiming that the United Monarchy of David and Solomon was not a real historical period of any value in the history of Israel. Indeed, these critics even argued that Yadin's findings were relevant only from the ninth century BCE, the period of the Israelite kings Omri and Ahab.

Writing in the April 11 issue of Science Magazine, Hebrew University Professor Amihai Mazar, Ben-Gurion University archeology and ecology expert Hendrik Bruins and Professor Hans Van der Plicht of Groningen describe their findings from excavations at Tel Rehov, located about five kilometers south of Beit She'an in the Beit She'an Valley. The scholars argue that these findings conclusively prove that they found at Tel Rehov signs of an urban society from the 10th century BCE that can be compared with finds from other Israeli sites such as Megiddo, Hatzor and Gezer, which were attributed in the past to the United Monarchy.

The authors wrote that "the issue of chronology in the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean region is not just of historical interest, but relates to various applied fields in the realm of risk assessment, including climate change, drought, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions."

The excavations at Tel Rehov have been carried out over the past six years under the direction of Mazar, with the financial support of John Camp of Minneapolis, Minn. The digs revealed several strata from the time of the Book of Judges (12th to 11th centuries BCE) until the Assyrian conquest of Israel in the eighth century BCE.

In the article in Science, Mazar, Bruins and Van der Plicht write of radiometric carbon 14 tests that were carried out at Groningen on charred grain and olive pits found in various strata at Tel Rehov. The dates achieved in this research were particularly precise, making it one of the best sets of radiometric dates based on stratigraphic sequence from any site related to the biblical period.

The results show that two strata at Tel Rehov are safely dated to the 10th century BCE. One stratum was destroyed in heavy fire. The date of this destruction fits very well with the reign of Shishak, the Egyptian Pharaoh who invaded the Land of Israel around 925 BCE. Shishak's invasion is mentioned both in the Bible (Kings I 14:25) and in his monumental inscription at the temple of Amun at Karnak in Upper Egypt, where Rehov is mentioned among many other places conquered at that time.

Shishak's military campaign was recorded in stone relief on the southern wall of the Amun temple, listing the names of the places he raided in ancient Israel and the Levant. The name Rehov appears on this list after the term "The Valley," most likely referring to the Beit She'an/Jordan Valley, and before the name Beit She'an. This sequence of place names at Karnak fits the local geography in the region of Tel Rehov very well indeed, according to the Science article.


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Until the summer of 1971 archaeology had failed to conclusively prove the historical basis of the Bible. The walls of Jericho had fallen from grace, the dream of Biblical Archaeologist William Foxwell Albright was still just a theory. That summer Yigael Yadin would complete the first proof of a Biblical Passage by finding the city gate of Gezer which King Solomon built circa 960 BC, and the Bible described in 1 Kings 9:15



"Now this is the way King Solomon conscripted the Labor Corps to build the house of the Lord, his house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer"

The Holy Bible 1 Kings 9:15



The Solomonic Gate at Gezer was the third Solomonic Gate discovered. Combined with the discoveries of the Solomonic Gates at Megiddo in the 1930's and Hazor in the 1950's, the Gezer Gate completed the first proof of a biblical passage in history with rocks on the ground. It was the long sought after historical nexus where scientific theory


peace.

Give me a chance to reply then?, it's difficult to keep up with replying to everyone on multiple threads, also I can't just sit at the computer all day long s sometimes you got to be patient and wait a day or two?, I am trying to answer your questions and present good information to support it but it's not instantanious so relax yourself.


peace.

Friday April 18, 2003

Scholars excavate proof of Kings David and Solomon

JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
Jerusalem Post Service

JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by King David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has been affirmed by laboratory tests on archeological samples from excavations near Beit She'an.

The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular significance to the running debate among archeologists about the authenticity of the biblical account of the two kings, and the period and extent of their reign.

The distinguished Hebrew University archeologist, the late Professor Yigael Yadin, argued more than 40 years ago that a series of monumental structures and particularly the city gates of Hatzor, Megiddo and Gezer as well as certain Megiddo palaces were founded by Solomon, as recorded in the First Book of Kings (9:15). Calling them Solomon's Gate's is wrong without some inscription or marking to verify they were made for Solomon, without that they could have been made for anybody. It is just wishful thinking to say they were made for Solomon.
However, in the 1990s various scholars criticized this view, claiming that the United Monarchy of David and Solomon was not a real historical period of any value in the history of Israel. Indeed, these critics even argued that Yadin's findings were relevant only from the ninth century BCE, the period of the Israelite kings Omri and Ahab.

Writing in the April 11 issue of Science Magazine, Hebrew University Professor Amihai Mazar, Ben-Gurion University archeology and ecology expert Hendrik Bruins and Professor Hans Van der Plicht of Groningen describe their findings from excavations at Tel Rehov, located about five kilometers south of Beit She'an in the Beit She'an Valley. The scholars argue that these findings conclusively prove that they found at Tel Rehov signs of an urban society from the 10th century BCE that can be compared with finds from other Israeli sites such as Megiddo, Hatzor and Gezer, which were attributed in the past to the United Monarchy.Dr Michael Magee writes:

"David's Tower in Jerusalem is not David's but Herod's, and David's Citadel in Jerusalem is not David's but Moslem, built by the Mamelukes and the Ottomons, though many devout religious tourists do not realize, or, will not hear, any of it."

From here:

1. http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0150David.php

And: "The tenth century empire of David and Solomon did not exist because there was no Israel at all before the ninth century. Omri was the real founder of the state of Israel and the Omride dynasty (884-842 BC), as the Assyrian records and the Mesha stele say. This was Israel's first kingdom."

From here:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0140UnitedMonarchy.php

Donald Redford, an author and leading authority on the era, writes in frustration at the absence of anything to verify the biblical stories:

"Such topics as the foreign policy of David and Solomon, Solomon's trade in horses or his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter must remain themes for midrash and fictional treatment."

From here:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0160Solomon.php

with many thanks to Segestan
Until the summer of 1971 archaeology had failed to conclusively prove the historical basis of the Bible. The walls of Jericho had fallen from grace, the dream of Biblical Archaeologist William Foxwell Albright was still just a theory. That summer Yigael Yadin would complete the first proof of a Biblical Passage by finding the city gate of Gezer which King Solomon built circa 960 BC, and the Bible described in 1 Kings 9:15


"Now this is the way King Solomon conscripted the Labor Corps to build the house of the Lord, his house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer"

The Holy Bible 1 Kings 9:15



The Solomonic Gate at Gezer was the third Solomonic Gate discovered. Combined with the discoveries of the Solomonic Gates at Megiddo in the 1930's and Hazor in the 1950's, the Gezer Gate completed the first proof of a biblical passage in history with rocks on the ground. It was the long sought after historical nexus where scientific theory


peace. rebutted above.

Hi all,



Iason,

Someone whose reading comprehension is so bad they cannot get a simple name correct.

Someone who cannot tell which Don Juan I mean, even when I include (Carlos Castaneda) to make it clear.

Someone who simply ignores the evidence which shows he is wrong.




...or entirely fictional characters.

Yes, entirely fictional characters who were passed off as historical.
Exactly what YOU claimed did NOT exist.

Thus proving you wrong.
You just IGNORED them!

We can all see you are simply unable to address the facts, because you are pathologically incapable of admitting error.




Again, you cannot ask me to prove that Adam and Eve existed.

WTF?
Do you even remember what we are arguing?
It appears not.

Adam and Eve did NOT exist - but they WERE passed of as historical for centuries.

Proving you wrong.
Again.


Iasion

Hiya,


Friday April 18, 2003
Scholars excavate proof of Kings David and Solomon

Really?
I look forward to seeing this "proof".
(I'll ignore the fact that science does NOT do "proof", and consider this to mean "clear and certain evidence".)



JERUSALEM -- The existence of a united Israelite monarchy headed by King David and his son, King Solomon, in the 10th century BCE has been affirmed by laboratory tests on archeological samples from excavations near Beit She'an.

Really?
I look forward to seeing this "affirmed".




The findings, reached through carbon dating by scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, have particular significance to the running debate among archeologists about the authenticity of the biblical account of the two kings, and the period and extent of their reign.

Really?




The distinguished Hebrew University archeologist, the late Professor Yigael Yadin, argued more than 40 years ago that a series of monumental structures and particularly the city gates of Hatzor, Megiddo and Gezer as well as certain Megiddo palaces were founded by Solomon, as recorded in the First Book of Kings (9:15).

So,
40 years ago, a faithful believer made some CLAIMS.
No "proof" there.



However, in the 1990s various scholars criticized this view, claiming that the United Monarchy of David and Solomon was not a real historical period of any value in the history of Israel. Indeed, these critics even argued that Yadin's findings were relevant only from the ninth century BCE, the period of the Israelite kings Omri and Ahab.

So,
these claims did not stand up up so scrutiny.


Writing in the April 11 issue of Science Magazine, Hebrew University Professor Amihai Mazar, Ben-Gurion University archeology and ecology expert Hendrik Bruins and Professor Hans Van der Plicht of Groningen describe their findings from excavations at Tel Rehov, located about five kilometers south of Beit She'an in the Beit She'an Valley. The scholars argue that these findings conclusively prove that they found at Tel Rehov signs of an urban society from the 10th century BCE that can be compared with finds from other Israeli sites such as Megiddo, Hatzor and Gezer, which were attributed in the past to the United Monarchy.

Here is the meat :
"argue that these findings conclusively prove that they found at Tel Rehov signs of an urban society from the 10th century BCE"

So,
this "proof" for Solomon merely turns out to be a evidence for
"an urban society from the 10th century BCE".

No evidence for Solomon, no evidence for anything to do with the Bible at all. Just an urban society.

What is the connection with Solomon ?
This : "which were attributed in the past to the United Monarchy".

Yet the article is headed
"Scholars excavate PROOF of Kings David and SOLOMON"

when the reality is :
"Scholars find evidence for 10th century urban society".



The excavations at Tel Rehov have been carried out over the past six years under the direction of Mazar, with the financial support of John Camp of Minneapolis, Minn. The digs revealed several strata from the time of the Book of Judges (12th to 11th centuries BCE) until the Assyrian conquest of Israel in the eighth century BCE.

Once again - all this reveals is occupation in 12th/11th centuries - something we KNOW is true.

But then the article turns to almost to preaching "the digs revealed several strata from the time of the Book of Judges". As if they are EVIDENCE for the time of judges.

This article from the popular press is nothing more than apologetics.



In the article in Science, Mazar, Bruins and Van der Plicht write of radiometric carbon 14 tests that were carried out at Groningen on charred grain and olive pits found in various strata at Tel Rehov. The dates achieved in this research were particularly precise, making it one of the best sets of radiometric dates based on stratigraphic sequence from any site related to the biblical period.

There is NO evidence this site is related to anything Biblical. But to a believer, it MUST be.



The results show that two strata at Tel Rehov are safely dated to the 10th century BCE. One stratum was destroyed in heavy fire. The date of this destruction fits very well with the reign of Shishak, the Egyptian Pharaoh who invaded the Land of Israel around 925 BCE. Shishak's invasion is mentioned both in the Bible (Kings I 14:25) and in his monumental inscription at the temple of Amun at Karnak in Upper Egypt, where Rehov is mentioned among many other places conquered at that time.

It fits.
That's it.
No evidence of any connection, but to a believer, it fits, so it is evidence.



Shishak's military campaign was recorded in stone relief on the southern wall of the Amun temple, listing the names of the places he raided in ancient Israel and the Levant. The name Rehov appears on this list after the term "The Valley," most likely referring to the Beit She'an/Jordan Valley, and before the name Beit She'an. This sequence of place names at Karnak fits the local geography in the region of Tel Rehov very well indeed, according to the Science article.

So the historical records of a historical figure are accurate historically. So what? There is no connection to Solomon here.



Until the summer of 1971 archaeology had failed to conclusively prove the historical basis of the Bible. The walls of Jericho had fallen from grace, the dream of Biblical Archaeologist William Foxwell Albright was still just a theory. That summer Yigael Yadin would complete the first proof of a Biblical Passage by finding the city gate of Gezer which King Solomon built circa 960 BC, and the Bible described in 1 Kings 9:15

Proof?
Solomon's gate?
Really?

Does archeology in general agree with these CLAIMS, EmptyForce?

Have you checked the claims in this popular article with modern mainstream archeology?


Iasion

Hi all,

Someone whose reading comprehension is so bad they cannot get a simple name correct.

Someone who cannot tell which Don Juan I mean, even when I include (Carlos Castaneda) to make it clear.

Someone who simply ignores the evidence which shows he is wrong.

Yes, entirely fictional characters who were passed off as historical.
Exactly what YOU claimed did NOT exist.

Thus proving you wrong.
You just IGNORED them!

We can all see you are simply unable to address the facts, because you are pathologically incapable of admitting error.

WTF?
Do you even remember what we are arguing?
It appears not.

Adam and Eve did NOT exist - but they WERE passed of as historical for centuries.

Proving you wrong.
Again.


Iasion

Well now your just looking to insult me.

I got your name wrong because i just scan you posts. Sure you may impress a few people here (3 or 4) but i never found you all that compelling. You may also have your own little messianic complex but that is not my problem.


Someone who cannot tell which Don Juan I mean, even when I include (Carlos Castaneda) to make it clear.

i really had very little interest because i learned about that around the third grade. Carlos Castaneda...give me a break. Tell me how what he wrote about has anything to do with this. Your just shooting blanks.

I see, aside from your insults, that you STILL have not come up with one name to corroborate what you are saying, to show a precedence. I am very sure of the things i say here, not because of animosity, which is your motivation, but just because it is logical. There is no reason to make people up and it would not convince anyone anyway.

You are doing the same exact thing by focusing on one subject and building a story (religion) around that it. This is what conspiracy makers do. I could care less about someones religious beliefs. I look at things subjectively and from the viewpoint of an Agnostic. Never worshiped in churches or temples and never read a holy book. Not that there is anything wrong with that for other people because if you dont bother anyone than it is none of my business.

Greetings,

Let's recap -

John99 said this :
"One thing to consider is that no historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person."

Of course it's not possible for a figure that WAS actually historical to have been "made up", so this statement has to be interpreted to mean :

"One thing to consider is that no [purported] historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person."

Yet two of us listed several such figures.



i really had very little interest because i learned about that around the third grade. Carlos Castaneda...give me a break. Tell me how what he wrote about has anything to do with this. Your just shooting blanks.

What is wrong with you?
Have you forgotten what YOUR claim is already ?

Carlos Castaneda "made up" a [purported] historical figure that he "passed of as as actual person".

Clear and present evidence that disproves your claim. You just keep pretending otherwise. No-one is fooled.



I see, aside from your insults, that you STILL have not come up with one name to corroborate what you are saying,

Liar.
I listed SEVERAL, you have even mentioned one such in THIS post.
Yet you lie that I have listed none !




There is no reason to make people up and it would not convince anyone anyway.

There are many reasons to make people up.

There are many persons that HAVE been made up, that have been passed off as real people, such as :

Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, David etc.
John Frum (cargo cult)
Molly Pitcher (civil war)
Don Juan (from Carlos Castaneda)
William Tell
Ebion (mythical founder of the Ebionites)
Odysseus, Hercules, Ajax
Krishna
Zoroaster
Hermes

John99 will no doubt just continue to ignore all these examples that prove him wrong.

Quite sad really.


Iasion

Iason,

You start your post with "Greetings" and a few lines later this:

You lieing sack of shit.

Nice. Showing your true colors now.

I said pick ONE historical figure that was believed to be an actual person and has been PROVEN NOT to be an actual person.

Not disputed from folklore or some obscure person written about in a book that may or may not be made up. I can go through a Charles Dickens novel and say any character was based on a real person. Not the same thing.

The reason they are not the same is because the level is not the same. The followers, the believers etc. this is what i am looking for. You tell me "molly malone from the folk song in 1822 was not real" what would you like for me to tell you?


Carlos Castaneda "made up" a [purported] historical figure that he "passed of as as actual person".


And?....

Religions that are\were based on an actual person, a figurehead WERE\ARE based on actual people. Even today we see this. What is so hard to understand? And why is this so hard to accept?

Has nothing to do with weather these people are actual prophets or anything like that. Just common sense, if you cannot handle this then let me know and i will not respond to you anymore.

How can i possibly tell you that Adam and Eve were real or fake? I am sure you think you can though.

If you cannot do this then be big enough to admit it. I dont appreciate the name calling.

If you cannot do this then be big enough to admit it. I dont appreciate the name calling.
Then don't be such a ?(you choose), formulate a reasoned argument, instead of trying to change the goalpost.
You have been proven wrong accept it.

Hiya,


Iason,
I said pick ONE historical figure that was believed to be an actual person and has been PROVEN NOT to be an actual person.

Yup,
And I provided several.
Now you appear to be playing a silly game where several is not one, making ME wrong.

How pathetic.



Not disputed from folklore or some obscure person written about in a book that may or may not be made up.

Ah, so now after being proved wrong, you make up some bullshit reasons to change the argument.

How dishonest.



The reason they are not the same is because the level is not the same. The followers, the believers etc. this is what i am looking for.

Scientology has many many believers.
Does that make Xenu real?
Don Juan?
John Frum?
All have/had followers and believers.




And?....

And it proves your claim false.
There is a new religion forming around the teachings of Don Juan - believers, followers etc.




Religions that are\were based on an actual person, a figurehead WERE\ARE based on actual people.


Such as the Goddess Demeter?
Or Dionysus?
Or Bacchus?
Or Don Juan?
Or Adam and Eve?
Or Xenu?
Or Mithras?
Or Luke Skywalker?

Or are you playing word games, so you can withdraw to claiming all actual persons are actual persons? You keep mangling your sentences.



How can i possibly tell you that Adam and Eve were real or fake? I am sure you think you can though.

Wow.
You cannot tell whether Adam and Eve were historical or not?
How sad for humanity I feel right now :-(


Iasion

Calling them Solomon's Gate's is wrong without some inscription or marking to verify they were made for Solomon, without that they could have been made for anybody. It is just wishful thinking to say they were made for Solomon.Dr Michael Magee writes:

"David's Tower in Jerusalem is not David's but Herod's, and David's Citadel in Jerusalem is not David's but Moslem, built by the Mamelukes and the Ottomons, though many devout religious tourists do not realize, or, will not hear, any of it."

From here:

1. http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0150David.php

And: "The tenth century empire of David and Solomon did not exist because there was no Israel at all before the ninth century. Omri was the real founder of the state of Israel and the Omride dynasty (884-842 BC), as the Assyrian records and the Mesha stele say. This was Israel's first kingdom."

From here:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0140UnitedMonarchy.php

Donald Redford, an author and leading authority on the era, writes in frustration at the absence of anything to verify the biblical stories:

"Such topics as the foreign policy of David and Solomon, Solomon's trade in horses or his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter must remain themes for midrash and fictional treatment."

From here:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0160Solomon.php

with many thanks to Segestan rebutted above.


Hiya,



Really?
I look forward to seeing this "proof".
(I'll ignore the fact that science does NOT do "proof", and consider this to mean "clear and certain evidence".)




Really?
I look forward to seeing this "affirmed".




Really?




So,
40 years ago, a faithful believer made some CLAIMS.
No "proof" there.




So,
these claims did not stand up up so scrutiny.



Here is the meat :
"argue that these findings conclusively prove that they found at Tel Rehov signs of an urban society from the 10th century BCE"

So,
this "proof" for Solomon merely turns out to be a evidence for
"an urban society from the 10th century BCE".

No evidence for Solomon, no evidence for anything to do with the Bible at all. Just an urban society.

What is the connection with Solomon ?
This : "which were attributed in the past to the United Monarchy".

Yet the article is headed
"Scholars excavate PROOF of Kings David and SOLOMON"

when the reality is :
"Scholars find evidence for 10th century urban society".




Once again - all this reveals is occupation in 12th/11th centuries - something we KNOW is true.

But then the article turns to almost to preaching "the digs revealed several strata from the time of the Book of Judges". As if they are EVIDENCE for the time of judges.

This article from the popular press is nothing more than apologetics.




There is NO evidence this site is related to anything Biblical. But to a believer, it MUST be.




It fits.
That's it.
No evidence of any connection, but to a believer, it fits, so it is evidence.




So the historical records of a historical figure are accurate historically. So what? There is no connection to Solomon here.




Proof?
Solomon's gate?
Really?

Does archeology in general agree with these CLAIMS, EmptyForce?

Have you checked the claims in this popular article with modern mainstream archeology?


Iasion



I see that it proves a settlement existed with resemblece to that of king solomons, it does not directly say anywhere or have inscribed his name to claim ownership of the kingdom. The gates match up with the script but again its not proof of solomon as the ruler.

I am checking all the claims, The mainstream have not concluded that it is king solomons kingdon, there needs to be more evidence that actualy puts his name to it.

Have either of you found anyting else out about this particular kingdom, that you have not mentioned or debated?.


peace.

Could you guys keep the bickering to a minimum level pleaee, or add some humour to it atleast if you have to verbaly slap each other like little girls, and keep the debate moving.



peace.

Hiya,


it does not directly say anywhere or have inscribed his name to claim ownership of the kingdom. The gates match up with the script but again its not proof of solomon as the ruler.

So, the article's title was an outright lie.
Your claim that there is evidence for Solomon is false.

Like I said.


Iasion

I am checking all the claims, The mainstream have not concluded that it is king solomons kingdon, there needs to be more evidence that actualy puts his name to it.

So you will keep believing.
Ignoring the facts.




Have either of you found anyting else out about this particular kingdom, that you have not mentioned or debated?.

Solomon's kingdom?
It didn't exist.


Iasion

So you will keep believing.
Ignoring the facts.

I believe it could be king solomons kingdom, I don't know.





Solomon's kingdom?
It didn't exist.

How do you know for sure?.



peace.