archaeology and evolution

unprovable and mostly an accusation by those who do not believe the Bible. so do almost all historians, what is your point? that modern historians can do it and it is not wrong but it is wrong for the ancients?writing it decades later doesn't mean it didnot happen.

What??? A scholarly Jew, who has written a huge volume on the beliefs and histories of his people, inserts one little paragraph on this guy Jesus, and casually mentions -

quote:

---

oh by the way, this guy is the Messiah; you know, the one us Jews are waiting for in all expectation. Anyway, moving on...

---

Do you really believe your own bullshit here?

yet it does happen all the time and as the old saing goes, history is in the eye of the historian, which seems to apply to josephus. the only reason unbelievers do not like that comment is because it provides ancient confirmation for Jesus.if josephus had done something similar to plato, then theunbelievers would have been trumpeting it all over and rebuking all those who claimed josephus remarks about plato were wrong.put the shoe on the other foot and compare notes and see how ridiculous unbelievers are. they have not one shred of proof that that comment is a forgery.

Hi cavediver, Maybe he just wanted to be considered as a true historian.Why would the Jews write much about Jesus?They rejected Him as king.The rejected Him as the Messiah.They had Him killed because He claimed to be God.They paid the guards to lie telling that the disciples had come and stolen the body while they were asleep. That story is still reported today by some. Others believe he was a prophet and great teacher.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If it's not a forgery why doesn't it appear in the original Greek?

Are you implying they don't give a hoot about historical facts? Wouldn't some of them write about it because it happened? Just because they didn't accept him as the messiah, they surely would acknowledge his factual existence and factual resurrection, if the events attributed to the alleged jesus were, indeed, factual. If the only people who would have written about him were people who actually believed he was who you say he was, well, that throws a stone on the lily pad, now doesn't it?

---

As a matter of fact, if some copies of Josephus contained a couple of sentences in which Josephus casually mentioned that Plato was the promised Messiah of the Jews, before equally casually abandoning the subject and moving on to the next topic, then we would be equally suspicious.The difference is that in that case so would you. We have more than a shred. First there is the fact that this supposed comment by Josephus went unnoticed by such Christian writers as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian and Arnobius, and is nowhere attested 'til the fourth century.The second and more conclusive is that Josephus was not a Christian, and that historians generally do not write things that they do not believe.---Now, about those Minoan microscopes ... any evidence yet?

Hu hooah, They care about as much as our historians do of our history today.They as our historians recorded and perserved what they wanted us to hear and believe.I didn't know until recently that we had 22 African American Republicans elected to congress prior to 1890 and one became speaker of the house.If our history can be erased in a hundred and 30 years why would I believe that the Jews would keep a good record of an event they denied happened?Luke is considered a creditable historian by most scholars. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay says of Luke, "he should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."This historian recorded that a virgin named Mary would have a son whose name would be Jesus.He recorded that the child was born and named Jesus.He recorded many people being healed of many different ailments.He recorded the death of Jesus.He recorded the women found an empty tomb.He recorded of two men meeting Jesus and inviting Him to dinner not knowing who He was and during the meal they realized who He was. This was after His resurrectrion.He recorded Jesus stood in the midst of the disciples after His resurrection.He recorded that they were terrified at this sight.He recorded that Jesus showed them His hands and feet and they were satisfied after He had eaten a piece of broiled fish.He recorded Jesus saying unto them, "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:"In Luke 3:1 Luke refers to Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27. This has been held out to be bad information.Archaeology stepped in finding an inscription from the time of Tiberius, from A.D. 14 to 37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila.Luke referenced 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine islands correctly.So at least one historian has recorded Jesus death, burial, and resurrection as well as His healing of different people of different problems.So Archaeology bears out that many things recorded in the Bible is true and that Luke was factual.Whether you believe it or not is your problem.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

But don't forget, archaeology has disproved both the young earth belief and the notion of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your comments concerning African American congressmen during Reconstruction are about your own personal ignorance, not about the professionalism of historians.I knew this information in grammar school, where were you?Also concerning the "Speaker of the House" please show me which Black American is the US Speaker of the House of Representatives on this website - List of speakers of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia. For your help, it has pictures.I think using the term "Speaker of the House" is inappropriate when it is not appended to 'of South Carolina' during Reconstruction when unrepentant Confederates were not allowed to vote.However I am allowed to vote and I vote deceptive, and possibly intentional. I also vote someone is blaming others for their own ignorance instead of taking the personal responsibility to learn what the average poster here likely has known for decades, including those who don't even live in the US.Since your opinion concerning the craft of history appears primarily informed by your own ignorance, it is no wonder that you have no clue as to the validity of some speculations concerning the science of archeology.Edited by anglagard, : Last paragraph to tie to OP, lest It be called OT.Edited by anglagard, : add 'some speculations'

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

And I've been to Verona, Italy, but that doesn't mean that Romeo and Juliet was one of Shakespeare's histories.Luke is the absolute latest of the Gospels, written as much as a century after the events it purports to recount. The Luke author (who was obviously not named "Luke") didn't "record" anything so much as plagiarize it from other Gospels, embellish it, or simply make it up from whole cloth.

John is the latest of the canonical gospels, and also the one most divorced from reality with the most elaborate and dramatic miracles.

how do you know you have josephus' original copy? maybe those greek mss. were changed by copyists? how do you know they didn't? maybe their ocmments about it were edited out? maybe they wrote about it in works we do not have? or maybe they didn't need touse it in their works?do you read long dead minds? not true. i have books written about non-muslims writing about islam/mohammad. church histories written by unbelievers, israeli histories written by non-israelies and non-believers. just wrong and flies in the face of the best biblical scholarship today. as is this.

We have the originals. It was promised they would never be changed. No, we know they weren't changed. We have the originals. And they claim that muhammad was a prophet of god? THE prophet, no less? Yet didn't convert? And they all claimed that what those religions claimed was true, yet they decided not to convert to them? It was only partially wrong. No, that one is actually completely correct.

okay, now you have crossed the line and i am finished discussing with you.