Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reliable history in the Bible
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 300 (374273)
01-03-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by DrJones*
01-03-2007 11:12 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
I misread the source. That was my fault. Thats just a red herring to the actual issue however.
Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 11:12 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 11:20 PM Casey Powell has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 17 of 300 (374275)
01-03-2007 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 11:17 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
Thats just a red herring to the actual issue however
The issue is "The bible is a historical document that's proven itself reliable for its historical value", you offered the Jame's ossuary as support for this. Are you now withdrawing it as support?

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 11:17 PM Casey Powell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 11:22 PM DrJones* has not replied

Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 300 (374277)
01-03-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by DrJones*
01-03-2007 11:20 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
Given the fact that I have someone who was highly responsible for the dead sea scrolls editing process agreeing that it is completely authentic.....I will say most certainly not.
And no, thats the thread title (duh!). The issue here is whether or not the ossuary is fake or not.
Edited by JesusFighter, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DrJones*, posted 01-03-2007 11:20 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 01-03-2007 11:54 PM Casey Powell has not replied
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 01-04-2007 6:33 AM Casey Powell has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 300 (374288)
01-03-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 11:22 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
You are using the ossuary as evidence proving the Bible's historical credibility. Your own sources have shown that the thing is a fake.
Now, don't you think it would be better if you just conceeded the point of the ossuary and came up with something else to show the Bible as a reliable historical account? Maybe we could talk about the tragedies that befell the Egyptians in the Book of Exodus?
Or, you could go on arguing a lost point... it's up to you
J0N

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 11:22 PM Casey Powell has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 20 of 300 (374312)
01-04-2007 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 10:44 PM


There is some more hardcore information on Jesus here!
Where?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 10:44 PM Casey Powell has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 21 of 300 (374315)
01-04-2007 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 10:44 PM


There is some more hardcore information on Jesus here!
i agree with brian, the only thing you have shown is the history of crucifixion and what the romans used it for and how it was done
nothing you have posted remotely shows the bibles stories are true, posting stuff about crucifixion is not showing any evidence, its like trying to claim people eat and people eat in the bible makes the bible true
what you have shown is what i've come to the conclusion on, traditions are never true
jesus didn't carry the whole cross then, well that destroys that tradition doesn't it?
as for the cross being in herculaneum, what does this show? i'm confused, this seems to only show that in 78am they believed christ was crusified
and the ossuary's only show that people named thier children jesus, what is it with people thinking that jesus was such a special name? from what i understand it was a pretty damn common name in israel and still is. i mean the guy who condemned james the brother of jesus, who may or may not have been christ was named jesus!
from trying to find info on the two ossuaries, there isn't much and Sukenik's stuff isn't really taken as true, this only shows belief in jesus being crusified in the supposed time. although its rather questionable why its in greek and not aramaic, and part of one of the incriptions is mangled, the incriptions arn't names they are pleas to jesus, it only shows belief not that he really existed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 10:44 PM Casey Powell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ramoss, posted 01-04-2007 8:45 AM ReverendDG has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 300 (374322)
01-04-2007 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 11:22 PM


Re: Jame's ossuary is fake
JesusFighter,
Given the fact that I have someone who was highly responsible for the dead sea scrolls editing process agreeing that it is completely authentic.....I will say most certainly not.
And no, thats the thread title (duh!). The issue here is whether or not the ossuary is fake or not.
I think that given the fact that the Israeli authorities consider it a fake compared to your aquaintance thinking it isn't is more than enough reason to discount it as "reliable history".
That is the issue here as it is the standard you have to meet.
Joshua, Jesus, etc. Weren't exactly rare names, so even if they were genuine, so what? When I die my tomb becomes an apostles last resting place...
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 11:22 PM Casey Powell has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 23 of 300 (374334)
01-04-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Casey Powell
01-03-2007 10:44 PM


Historical findings have substantiated the traditional cross.
Did anyone doubt the ”traditional cross’?
One finding is a graffito1 dating to shortly after 200 A.D., taken from the walls of the Roman Palatine. It is a drawing of a crucified ass; a mockery of a Christian prisoner who worships Christ. The Romans were no doubt amused
How do you know it was drawn by a Roman?
that Christians worshiped this Jesus whom they had crucified on a cross.
I thought it was the Jews that wanted Jesus crucified, apparently Pilate could find nothing to crucify him for.
in June of 1968, bulldozers working north of Jerusalem accidentally laid bare tombs dating from the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. Greek archeologist Vasilius Tzaferis was instructed by the Israeli Department of Antiquities to carefully excavate these tombs. Subsequently one of the most exciting finds of recent times was unearthed - the first skeletal remains of a crucified man. The most significant factor is its dating to around the time of Christ. The skeleton was of a man named Yehohanan son of Chaggol, who had been crucified between the age of 24 and 28. Mr. Tzaferis wrote an article in the Jan/Feb. 1985 issue of the secular magazine Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), and here are some of his comments regarding crucifixion in Jesus' time:
At the end of the first century B.C., the Romans adopted crucifixion as an official punishment for non-Romans for certain limited transgressions. Initially, it was employed not as a method of execution, but only as a punishment. Moreover, only slaves convicted of certain crimes were punished by crucifixion. During this early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was placed on the slave's neck and bound to his arms.
...When the procession arrived at the execution site, a vertical stake was fixed into the ground. Sometimes the victim was attached to the cross only with ropes. In such a case, the patibulum or crossbeam, to which the victim's arms were already bound, was simply affixed to the vertical beam; the victim's feet were then bound to the stake with a few turns of the rope.
If the victim was attached by nails, he was laid on the ground, with his shoulders on the crossbeam. His arms were held out and nailed to the two ends of the crossbeam, which was then raised and fixed on top of the vertical beam. The victim's feet were then nailed down against this vertical stake.
In order to prolong the agony, Roman executioners devised two instruments that would keep the victim alive on the cross for extended periods of time. One, known as a sedile, was a small seat attached to the front of the cross, about halfway down. This device provided some support for the victim's body and may explain the phrase used by the Romans, "to sit on the cross." Both Eraneus and Justin Martyr describe the cross of Jesus
In a followup article on this archeological find in the Nov/Dec. issue of BAR, the statement is made:
According to the (Roman) literary sources, those condemned to crucifixion never carried the complete cross ,
You are doing a good job of discrediting the Bible all by yourself.
The thread is about evidence to SUPPORT the Bible as a reliable historical source, your link says that no one ever carried their cross to their place of crucifixion, yet the Bible claims:
John 19:17
So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
Of course this is contradicted in the Synoptics who have Simon carrying the cross, which further undermines the reliability of the Bible!
Luke 23:26
As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
Mark 15:21
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Matthew 27:32
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Well done, you have shown how UNreliable the Bible is!
One (ossuary) had the name "Judah" associated with a cross with arms of equal length. Further, the name "Jesus" occurred three times, twice in association with a cross.
Jesus was a very common name, the chances of there only being one person named Jesus (Joshua/Jeshua) being crucified in first century Palestine must be astronomical.
In 1939 excavations at Herculaneum, the sister city of Pompeii (destroyed in 78 A.D. by volcano) produced a house where a wooden cross had been nailed to the wall of a room. According to Buried History, (Vol. 10, No. 1, March 1974 p. 15):
Below this (cross) was a cupboard with a step in front. This has considered to be in the shape of an ara or shrine, but could well have been used as a place of prayer. . . . If this interpretation is correct, and the excavators are strongly in favor of the Christian significance of symbol and furnishings, then here we have the example of an early house church.
This is very flimsy evidence of anything, the source itself claims that its interpretation isn’t certain. Even if it was, what does is it in the Bible that it supports?
In 1945 a family tomb was discovered in Jerusalem by Prof. E.L. Sukenik of the Museum of Jewish Antiquities of the Hebrew University. Prof. Sukenik is the world's leading authority on Jewish ossuaries. Note his findings:
Two of the ossuaries bear the name "Jesus" in Greek. . . . The second of these also has four large crosses drawn. . . . (Prof. Sukenik) concluded that the full inscriptions and the crosses were related, being expressions of grief at the crucifixion of Jesus, being written about that time. . . . Professor Sukenik points out . . . (that) the cross may represent a "pictorial expression of the crucifixion, tantamount to exclaiming `He was crucified!'" As the tomb is dated by pottery, lamps and the character of the letters used in the inscriptions--from the first century B.C. to not later than the middle of the first century A.D. this means that the inscriptions fall within two decades of the Crucifixion at the latest. (Ancient Times, Vol. 3, No. 1, July 1958, p. 35. See also Vol. 5, No. 3, March 1961, p. 13.)
Well, it doesn’t mean that the inscriptions fall within two decades at all.
Tell me, how does dating pottery possibly place the limit on the tomb to two decades after the crucifixion? Did this type of pottery just cease to exist or something? If I get buried with a piece of antique pottery does that mean I died before I was born?
The same with ”lamps’, they can be used, or preserved and placed in a tomb long after someone had died. What if the owner of the tomb had kept these lamps safe for 40 years then had them buried with him?
It is the same with the character of lettering, it doesn’t just stop overnight, and your source doesn’t even say what the ”character’ of the letters is!
How can anyone take such drivel seriously?
I have to wonder just what qualifications many Christian website owners have because most of what is posted at this forum from these sites wounded pass high school requirements.
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/cross.htm
The address is hilarious, the only thing that the owner’s mind is free from is any grounding in reality.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Casey Powell, posted 01-03-2007 10:44 PM Casey Powell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 01-04-2007 1:18 PM Brian has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 24 of 300 (374342)
01-04-2007 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by ReverendDG
01-04-2007 4:54 AM


Another point is that the cross could very well have been a symbol from another religion. Bacchus is supposed to have used the cross as a holy symbol also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ReverendDG, posted 01-04-2007 4:54 AM ReverendDG has not replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 25 of 300 (374405)
01-04-2007 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brian
01-04-2007 8:14 AM


Brian writes:
The thread is about evidence to SUPPORT the Bible as a reliable historical source, your link says that no one ever carried their cross to their place of crucifixion, yet the Bible claims:
The link does say people carried their own crosses in a procession. The Greek of John 19:17 says; stauros, a stake or a pole. If Jesus carried a stake which was placed on top anothe at the place of execution, I think it still counts as 'carrying his cross'. The early christian artists were probably more at fault than John.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 01-04-2007 8:14 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Brian, posted 01-05-2007 8:01 AM anastasia has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 26 of 300 (374648)
01-05-2007 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by anastasia
01-04-2007 1:18 PM


Hi,
I meant to reply sooner.
When you say the Greek word means 'stake or pole' the link says that stauros can also mean cross, do you know if that is true or not?
I dont know how reliable the link is because when it says:
It took the form either of a T (Lat. crux commissa) or of a + (crux immissa). (Vol. 1, page 391)
the author is incorrect. It took three forms, the two mentioned plus another called crux decussata which was an 'X' shape.
I think it still counts as 'carrying his cross'
This would depend what the authors meant, and we will never know.
I wonder why John never mentioned Simon carrying Jesus' cross for Him?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 01-04-2007 1:18 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by anastasia, posted 01-07-2007 5:18 PM Brian has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 27 of 300 (374792)
01-05-2007 7:39 PM


News
Flash: Divers in the Sea of Galilee have discovered large quantities of pig bones under silt on the bed of the lake.
Christian Church cries 'Halleluyah, this indisputably proves the Gospel accounts'.
Descendants of original owners of animals to sue Christian Church.
Film at 11

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 28 of 300 (375135)
01-07-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Brian
01-05-2007 8:01 AM


Hi Brian,
Brian writes:
I meant to reply sooner.
I just saw this reply myself.
When you say the Greek word means 'stake or pole' the link says that stauros can also mean cross, do you know if that is true or not?
Sometimes I think you imagine me to have some secret knowledge that is not readily available
I don't have any proof, but what I think is that the original word 'stauros' came to be synonomous with 'cross' and was used to mean cross. But what part of the croos does it include? The entire cross, or just the stake that would be used to hang the victim from?
When we say 'cross' we emphasize a shape, or two objects crossed to form the shape. In the Bible the words seem to emphasize the wood or the tree or the beam used to form the cross. Maybe what we should find is when the cross was first referred to for its shape, which I assume was taken from the Latin.
JW's seem convinced that the cross had an earlier/truer form, that of being just a simple stake that the victim was bound to, or any available tree perhaps. This is taken from a literal interp. of the Greek words 'stauros' and 'xylon', both meaning a pole, tree, timber, or beam, but not describing any shape or position. I would take the JW 'research' with a grain of salt, but it is not impossible that people could have been crucified on one stake, at least in a pinch.
So, I have no problem seeing the word 'stauros' as being the stake or pole that made up the cross, and also becoming the word used for the cross itself, in whatever form it took.
As to why John did not mention Simon carrying the cross with Jesus, that I have no clue. The Stations of the Cross in church have always included 'Simon Helps Jesus to Carry His Cross', so I guess the church tried to incorporate both versions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Brian, posted 01-05-2007 8:01 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 01-07-2007 5:35 PM anastasia has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 300 (375136)
01-07-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by anastasia
01-07-2007 5:18 PM


Cross?
The problem with discussions about the exact meaning of words in situations like this is that we are talking about an event where there is no evidence even the basic event happened. Talking about the historical reliability of specifics of Jesus crucifixion when there is no reliable evidence Jesus even ever existed, much less was crucified is pretty much an exercise in futility it seems.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by anastasia, posted 01-07-2007 5:18 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by anastasia, posted 01-07-2007 5:50 PM jar has not replied
 Message 34 by Nimrod, posted 01-09-2007 4:30 AM jar has replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 30 of 300 (375139)
01-07-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
01-07-2007 5:35 PM


Re: Cross?
True of course jar, but it is at least possible to question whether the author of John was accurate to the best of our current knowledge, in his depiction of a crucifixion. I only say that I see no evidence he was not accurate on the methods, and that other methods may have been used from time to time that history hasn't recorded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 01-07-2007 5:35 PM jar has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024