Archeologly proves the Bible?

[Simon39759]

"misattributed urban legends/funny anectdotes."

Hey that looks good Simon . I just joined. Just wait till I get going.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

Snopes?
Yes, it is a pretty famous site...

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Personally, as a liberal Christian, I can't stand the Jesus seminar. They fall exactly between two stools: trying to be 'scientific' about things yet never meeting the standards of proper historical research, and also trying to be 'religious' yet apparently not having enough faith to acknowledge that Christianity doesn't rest on knowing exactly what the historical character called Jesus may or may not have said.

By using their supposed 'criteria', eg, the 'criterion of embarrassment', 'multiple attestation', 'uniqueness', etc, I can prove that Harry Potter really exists. What's the point?

 

[Maia]

We always seem to come back to the "existence of Harry Potter" argument around here... how many times do I have to tell you people??!? Of course he exists, but he's a jerk! How many more Lumos presentations do you need?? (It's in the fanfic, all in the fanfic...)

Anyway. Personally, I think that the Jesus Seminar may have its limitations, but I'm not so sure that not meeting the standards of historical research is really one of them. I would say that it's basically in the category of being about as historically accurate as things are likely to get when it comes to this area of scholarship. It's not exactly an accident, either, that this statement sounds as vague as it does. I'm not going to be the judge of how much faith the 150 scholars have or don't have, but Biblical scholarship can certainly have purposes other than just being a tool that we use to drag faith along with us. In other words, there are reasons to study what Jesus really did or didn't say or do besides trying to "prove" what our faith should or shouldn't be. If that's why we're doing it, then we didn't have a very good reason to begin with.

 

[eccles]

Of course Harry Potter exists as does Hogwarts. Here are aerial pics of Hogwarts. It is a few miles west of Loch Ness.




That is my Twin Otter on the runway at Hogwarts Airport ready to take off.

All screen shots from my MS FS2004 flight simulator.

 

[eccles]

What in your "God's" name is a liberal Christian. How long have you been suffering from this affliction? Have you seeked medical help?

 

[Nogbad]

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD. Which would make it 27 to 32 years after the crucifixion. And Mark was an associate of Peter from which he undoubtedly heard preaching of Jesus' words.

Also with regard to remembering things, Christ said in John 14:26:

"But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So If the Holy Spirit brings things to your memory it doesn't matter how long after the fact the words were written down.

And as no one else can remember exactly you can't lose. Brilliant!

As both Augustus and Herod had been on their respective thrones for decades, when was Jesus born? Clearly before 4BC but how long before. They had to flee to Eygpt and not return until Herod had died. So 6 BC? 8BC? 10 BC?

 

[TimCallahan]

To be honest, isn't the main evidence of the gospels being written after the destruction of the temple in Mark 13:2?



It is supposed to be a prediction by Jesus, so, if you subscribe in the thesis of magic Jesus, then it is conceivable that he knew and predicted the first revolt and the temple destruction by 33ish CE. The apostle would have reported it when writing the Gospels at any point after that, not even necessarily fully understanding it before it came to pass.


Similarly with Mark 13:9 that mentions the expulsion of the Christians from the synagogues (that started in the 80ies -80ies of the first century, hence it was not for playing Disco music):





Obviously, it seems more of a stretch than just assuming that it was written afterwards but it is not necessarily a slam dunk, considering Doc presuppositions.

The logic of my argument that Mark was written after the destruction othe Jerusalem Temple in the year 70 is as follows:

1) Jesus' prediction in the "little apocalypse" that not one stone of the Temple would left standing on another is either divinely inspired prophecy or history written after the fact.

2) If it is divinely inspired, we would expect the rest of Mark to likewise be divinely inspired. Thus, its geography, reference to Jewish law and any other prophesies in it would all be true, since God wouldn't make mistakes.

3) In point of fact, Mark gets the geography of Galilee wrong, is unfamiliar with Jewish law regarding divorce and predicts the return of Jesus in the lifetime his own generation (Mk. 8:38 - 9:1):

"For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his fFather with the holy angels." And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

Given that Mark gets the geography of Galilee wrong, is ignorant of jewish divorce laws (which Jesus wouldn't have been) and particularly in light of the failed prophecy above; that gospel cannot be divinely inspired. Ergo, its reference to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple is history written after the fact, meaning after CE 70. Q.E.D.

 

[Simon39759]

Fair enough, although I am sure that apologetists have plenty of excuses ready for these proofs of non-divine inspiration.

Now, I am off to look into more details about these geographical mistakes and divorce thingies, seems interesting.

 

[Hokulele]

The logic of my argument that Mark was written after the destruction othe Jerusalem Temple in the year 70 is as follows:

1) Jesus' prediction in the "little apocalypse" that not one stone of the Temple would left standing on another is either divinely inspired prophecy or history written after the fact.

I am not entirely convinced by this point. The actions of the residents of Jerusalem towards the Roman government made it a fairly banal prediction as far as prophecies go, especially if the gospel of Mark was written after the events of 66 CE. I wouldn't put it as early as 60-65 CE, however, unlike DOC's source.

Since we do not have the original manuscripts, it is possible that several such prophecies were originally included, but weeded out after the fact when they didn't come true.

 

[Simon39759]

Maybe, but Jesus also appears to reference the expulsion from the Synagogues... Also, that is less clear.

 

[GreNME]

Anyone who wants to crucify me, make it quick and painless as possible. I will post a list of my fees for haunting houses when I am a ghost.
Pray for me Oh Mighty Horus, Sun God.

I'm kind of done trying to point you in a more scholarly direction regarding Egyptian mythology (perhaps that other board will prove more successful), but just in case you're curious in most AE literature, the average person's references to Horus were to the effect of "Oh Great Bull in the Sky" or some other similar saying referring to Horus as the mighty bull. For your consideration, there are books out there to read what people actually wrote (to each other as well as to groups or to worshippers or to tell stories).

 

[eccles]

I'm kind of done trying to point you in a more scholarly direction regarding Egyptian mythology (perhaps that other board will prove more successful), but just in case you're curious in most AE literature, the average person's references to Horus were to the effect of "Oh Great Bull in the Sky" or some other similar saying referring to Horus as the mighty bull. For your consideration, there are books out there to read what people actually wrote (to each other as well as to groups or to worshippers or to tell stories).

Thanks, Those books look excellent. I have added them to my "buy later' shopping list at Amazon.com. I shall buy them when my funds permit.
In Australia, especially where I live, the book shops are lousey and the public library worse. Also the prices are sky high compared with US or the UK.

I truly appreciate your help.

 

[amb]

The logic of my argument that Mark was written after the destruction othe Jerusalem Temple in the year 70 is as follows:

1) Jesus' prediction in the "little apocalypse" that not one stone of the Temple would left standing on another is either divinely inspired prophecy or history written after the fact.

2) If it is divinely inspired, we would expect the rest of Mark to likewise be divinely inspired. Thus, its geography, reference to Jewish law and any other prophesies in it would all be true, since God wouldn't make mistakes.

3) In point of fact, Mark gets the geography of Galilee wrong, is unfamiliar with Jewish law regarding divorce and predicts the return of Jesus in the lifetime his own generation (Mk. 8:38 - 9:1):

"For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his fFather with the holy angels." And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

Given that Mark gets the geography of Galilee wrong, is ignorant of jewish divorce laws (which Jesus wouldn't have been) and particularly in light of the failed prophecy above; that gospel cannot be divinely inspired. Ergo, its reference to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple is history written after the fact, meaning after CE 70. Q.E.D.

Also, excuse me for adding. You failed to mention that whoever the author of Mark's gospel was, he lived nowhere near the place he was writing about, and didn't even know the Jewish laws and customs. That most scholars attribute this gospel as been written after the destruction of the temple, in the 70s.

 

[amb]

Thanks, Those books look excellent. I have added them to my "buy later' shopping list at Amazon.com. I shall buy them when my funds permit.
In Australia, especially where I live, the book shops are lousey and the public library worse. Also the prices are sky high compared with US or the UK.

I truly appreciate your help.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

Most of those books aren't even available here and if they are, cost double the price including transport.

 

[eccles]

GreNme,
What do you know about Pre-Christian contacts between Alexandria and India?

 

[eccles]

OK, Zooterkin

Stop gloating, You won the ASHES,

 

[GreNME]

GreNme,
What do you know about Pre-Christian contacts between Alexandria and India?

Do you mean Thebes (the Egyptian Alexandria)? I'd say that first I think you're asking about the wrong city, and second you're going to have to be more specific about which part of India and which time period you're referring to for me to give any kind of reasonable opinion.

Further, this might warrant its own thread in the History section or even in this Religion and Philosophy section, if what you're asking about is religious in nature.

 

[eccles]

Do you mean Thebes (the Egyptian Alexandria)? I'd say that first I think you're asking about the wrong city, and second you're going to have to be more specific about which part of India and which time period you're referring to for me to give any kind of reasonable opinion.

Further, this might warrant its own thread in the History section or even in this Religion and Philosophy section, if what you're asking about is religious in nature.

Ptolemaic Alexandria, not Thebes.

http://www.adolphus.nl/xcrpts/xclillie.html
[Megasthenes, Clement of Alexandria]
[102] We now come to a valuable piece of testimony, that of a Greek visiting India. Seleucus Nicator sent an ambassador, named Megasthenes, to King Chandragupta (B.C. 302-298). He visited that monarch at his capital, Palibothra, or Patna. His account of the India of that day is unfortunately lost; but through Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Arrian, and Clement of Alexandria, some valuable fragments have come down to us. Patna, it must be remembered, was in the very heart of the Buddhist Holy Land. Clement of Alexandria cites a passage from Megasthenes, on Indian Affairs. On the same page he thus describes the Indian "philosophers":

"Of these there are two classes, some of them called Sarmanae, and others Brahmins. And those of the Sarmanae who are called Hylobii neither inhabit cities nor have roofs over them, but are clothed in the bark of trees, feed on nuts, and drink water in their hands. Like those called Encratites in the present day, they know not marriage nor begetting of children. Some, too, of the Indians obey the precepts of Buddha, whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honours."

The importance of this passage is this, that from Strabo we get the description given by Megasthenes of the Indian philosophers, and it is made certain that the earlier part of this passage is from the same source.

[103] Strabo describes the Brahmins and the" Germanes," also called, he says, "Hylobii." He gives the same details as Clement of Alexandria about their feeding on wild fruits and wearing the bark of trees. He, too, draws a distinction between the Germanes and the Brahmins on the subject of continency, the Brahmins being polygamists.

From this it seems certain that Clement of Alexandria was writing the original work of Megasthenes before him. We may therefore, conclude that this passage about Buddha, sandwiched as it is between two genuine citations, was also in Megasthenes. [Not necessarily; Pantaenus had been to India and met Buddhists there himself. But Lillie didn’t know this] Strabo had handed down to us another statement of Megasthenes about the Hylobii :

"By their means the kings serve and worship the Deity."

There can be no doubt that the Sarmanes (Sramanae) and Brahmins of Megasthenes were the Brahmins and the Buddhists. To the first, according to Megasthenes, were confided sacrifices and ceremonies, for the dead as well as for the living. They were a caste apart, and none outside this caste could perform their duties. The gods would not accept the sacrifice of such an interloper. Their ideas on life and death were very similar to those of Plato and the Greeks. The Brahmins ate flesh and had many wives. Every new year there was a great synod of them.

GeNme I have started a new thread for this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5037033#post5037033

 

[GreNME]

Ptolemaic Alexandria, not Thebes. I'll have to get back to you about the time and part of India. I just came across this and have not studied it yet.

Then you're asking about connections between the Greek rulers and India. Once you get into the Ptolemaic period you've passed out of the realm of Egypt as a self-determining culture, and instead into the slow decline and over-run of Egyptian civilization until finally bred out by the Bedouin nomads, the Coptic people, and the Roman citizens.

A bit of caution: be wary of theosophist stories and those who use theosophist materials in their conclusions. The tendency to conclude viability of religious syncretism within those circles is based more on the human quirk of finding patterns and applying relationships to them where there really are none-- which isn't exclusive to Theosophists, since most religions, ideologues, and conspiracy theorists also display this quirk in spades.

 

[Simon39759]

Do you mean Thebes (the Egyptian Alexandria)? I'd say that first I think you're asking about the wrong city, and second you're going to have to be more specific about which part of India and which time period you're referring to for me to give any kind of reasonable opinion.

Further, this might warrant its own thread in the History section or even in this Religion and Philosophy section, if what you're asking about is religious in nature.

Both the Egyptian and the Indus civilization were in contact with Mesopotamia as early as the second millennium BCE.
There is not evidence of direct contact between the two but indirect exchange is definitively a possibility.



As for contact between Alexandria itself, and India... That'd bring us to the time of Alexander the Great.
Ptolemy I, founder of the Ptolemeic dynasty, was present alongside Alexander in the campaign in India.
After the death of Alexander, Seleucus left the service of Ptolemy and took control of the portion of his empire that stretched all the way to India. Later, extended it even further into the sub-continent, maybe all the way to the Indus. And, of course, the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties never lost contact with each other.

So, the Ptolemies were pretty well aware of the existence of, at least, Northern India.
The level of details of this knowledge? Couldn't tell you.

Here are a couple of maps (or reproduction) from that rough time period, in both, India is represented.

Eratosthenes' world map, traced in the thrid century BCE.

Ptolemy world map, traced in the 2nd century C.E.