It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mhc_70
Iasion that is soooo yesterday...don't you have any new material?
Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by newagent89
Enjoy your life and do good things and you can't go wrong.
Originally posted by Iasion
Originally posted by mhc_70
Iasion that is soooo yesterday...don't you have any new material?
I can see how it works around here ...
What you mean is - if people post enough forgeries and crap, some of it will slip thru...
It's a conspiracy site - people post crazy nonsense and expect to be believed - heck, most of the time they ARE.
It's not a site where people come to find out the truth .. it's a place to hear wacky stories and be entertained.
The Hittites are mentioned about 40 times in the Bible. In the 1800's critical scholars said that the Hittites had never existed. However, when archaeologists investigated the ruins of cities in Turkey, they found the records of the Hittites.2 Archaeologists and linguists worked hard and long to be able to translate the writings of the Hittites. The critics were wrong, while the Bible is right. The British Orientalist Archibald Henry Sayce wrote:
The mention of "the kings of the Hittites" in the account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrians (2 Kings 7:6) was declared to be an error or an invention; but it was only the ignorance of the critic himself that was at fault.3
Critical scholars believed that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible. They believed that Hebrew was not written until after about 800 B.C. At Ras Shamra, Syria, a French expedition found a temple library containing writing in several languages. There was material in an alphabetic Semitic language from the time of Moses.4 Sir Flinders Petrie found alphabetic inscriptions at Serabit el-Khadem in Sinai, which date to the time of Moses.5 You can understand that Spinoza and other critics of the Bible were very wrong. The Bible is right.
In the Bible, Sargon was mentioned as king of Assyria (Isaiah 20:1). Sargon's name was not found in ancient literature. This caused critical scholars to say that Sargon never existed.6 They believed that the Bible was wrong. P. E. Botta excavated near the ancient capital of Assyria, Nineveh, from 1842 to 1845. What he uncovered was Khorsabad. In this city, Botta found the palace of Sargon.7 The critical scholars were proven wrong. There was a king of Assyria named Sargon. The Bible is right. Isaiah had recorded that Sargon the king of Assyria had sent his army to capture the city of Ashdod (Isaiah 20:1). On the walls of Sargon's palace was found recorded the same event.8 The Bible is right.
In the Bible, the book of Daniel recorded that Belshazzar was king when the Medes and Persians took Babylon. Hitzig, a modern liberal, wrote in his commentary on Daniel that Belshazzar never existed.9 This was because ancient historians wrote that Nabonitus was the last king of Babylon. However, archaeologists have dug up clay tablets in the ruins of Babylon that stated that Nabonitus entrusted the kingship to his son Belshazzar, while he went to Tema in Arabia.10 Belshazzar was king when Babylon fell, just as recorded in Daniel 5. This also explains why Belshazzar proclaimed Daniel to be the third ruler in the kingdom (Daniel 5:29), instead of second. Daniel was third after Nabonitus and Belshazzar. There is evidence that Belshazzar was the son of Nitocris, who was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.11 Belshazzar was at least the "son of" Nebuchadnezzar in the sense of being his successor.12 The critics were wrong in saying that Belshazzar never existed. You can see that this was based on ignorance and not believing the Bible. What is even worse is that some still have been teaching such falsehoods. The Bible is right.
Scholars of the "deconstructionist" approach believed that the history of Israel before the Babylonian captivity is fictional. Philip R. Davies presented this view in his book: In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992). However, in 1993, an inscription was found in a stone stele by archaeologists at Tel Dan. "House of David" and "King of Israel" are in the inscription written in paleo-Hebrew script of the ninth century B.C. It shows that the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah and King David are historical. You can read about this in " 'David' Found at Dan," in Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 1994, pp. 26-39, and in Biblical Dan by Professor Avraham Biran (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994, pp. 274-278). The "deconstructionist" scholars' faith is fictional, but the Bible is historically accurate.13 Yes, the stones cry out! Those who claimed that King David never existed, are wrong.
In the book of Acts in the New Testament, Luke called the rulers of the city of Thessalonica, "politarchs," in the Greek language (Acts 17:8). Critical scholars called this a mistake, as no officials were known to have been called by this title. However, at least 17 inscriptions have been found in Thessalonica using the title "politarchs."14 Again archaeology has proven the critical scholars wrong in their ignorance. The Bible is right.
Sir William Ramsey (1851-1939) had accepted the views of F. C. Baur, Tübingen school of criticism, against the book of Acts. But his work as an archaeologist in Asia Minor showed him that the critics were wrong, and the book of Acts is accurate.15
. . . but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor.16
Critics F. C. Baur and Van Manen speculated that the Gospel of John was not written until after A.D. 150. However, copies of the Gospel of John have been found that date before A.D. 150.17 The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that the Gospel of John fits the language, the geography, the culture and historical context before A.D. 70. The destruction of Jerusalem destroyed all that, making it impossible for people living after A.D. 150 to have correctly gotten all those details.18
Archaeologist W. F. Albright wrote:
In the same way, the form-critical school founded by M. Dibelius and R. Bultmann a generation before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has continued to flourish without the slightest regard for the Dead Sea Scrolls. In other words, all radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are, therefore, since they were built in der luft ("in the air"), quite antiquated today.19
Dr. Nelson Glueck, a leading archaeologist, wrote:
As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.20
Originally posted by Bombeni
I am enjoying this debate. One aspect that isn't being discussed is the IRONY, if you will, of the numerous prophecies being foretold to Jesus' birth. Following is a great site that details them; of course you would have to read them before debating them.
-- By David Brandt Berg
Hundreds and even thousands of years BEFORE Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the Old Testament Prophets predicted His coming. Their predictions were not just general ones that "a Messiah, a Saviour, will come" etc., but SPECIFIC prophecies about places, times and events that have been fulfilled in only ONE person who has ever lived--JESUS of Nazareth! In this brief lesson we have chronologically arranged several of the most outstanding Old Testament Messianic prophecies in the actual verbatim text of the Scriptures and followed them with their New Testament fulfillments.
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Tacitus was in a position to have access to such official information as was available; he was the son-in-law of Julius Agricola, who was governor of Britain in AD 80 to 84. If Pilate did send a report to Rome Tacitus was more likely to know of it than most writers, his language is too summary to make any such inference certain. One point is worth noting, however apart from Jewish and Christian writers, Tacitus is the one and only ancient author to mention Pilate. It may surely be accounted one of the ironies of history that the only mention Pilate receives from a Roman historian is in connection with the part he played in the execution Jesus.
Originally posted by tehdreamer
reply to post by undo
Yeah i have just checked, it was indeed labeled as hoax by the Israeli's, yet many scientists and scholars say that labeling the find fake was premature (box was found in 2002, in 2003 it was said its fake). Wierd enough the actual box dates 2000 years back but the inscription saying "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," was said to be carved much later and apparently is not old enough for it to be genuine. The guy who found it claims he bought it from some private collector on the Israeli market and the collector himself was amazed and didnt even know Jesus had a brother. Maybe it is a fake, maybe not, not going to change much anyways, people who believe will still believe.
"In April the Israel Antiquities Authority formed two committees to examine the evidence. One was assigned the task of examining "the scientific aspects in the writing and style [to be able to] confirm the authenticity of the writing;" the other was tasked with verifying the "originality of the patina" on the stone's engraving and the stone material itself.
The committees released their unanimous findings Wednesday: the box itself may be correctly dated, but the inscription was added at a later date."
The Jesus Mysteries is by Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke. They haven’t got a peer reviewed paper or scholarly monograph between them but no one ever said that a complete lack of the relevant qualifications should prevent someone writing a book on Jesus. Publishers positively encourage it because these sorts of books make a lot of money. They are called ‘wah-wah’ books in the trade which, as you can tell, isn’t very flattering, and they are not to be taken seriously. HarperCollins, who publishes The Jesus Mysteries, has even decided to use a special imprint called ‘Thorsons’ for everything they publish in the field. This is a good idea as it distances their still quite respectable name from some of the trash they need to bring out to stay in business.
During a short exchange I had with Peter Gandy on an Internet Discussion Board I asked him if any academics at respectable universities supported his thesis. Of course, he did not give me an answer as it would have to be in the negative.
One thing that can be said for the Jesus Mysteries is that it has a long bibliography and lots of notes. This is an essential part of any scholarly work but sadly in this case it does not live up to its billing. For a start, very many of the books referred to in the notes are extremely old and very hard to get hold of for any one without a first class library at hand. I took my copy of the Jesus Mysteries with me when I went to a summer school at the University of Wales thinking that there at least I would be able to find the books the authors refer to. Not a bit of it. Unperturbed, I tried the unfeasibly large University of London Library where I met with a shade more success but still found few of the older authorities on Mithras.
This is serious because many of the claims made about parallels between Jesus and pagan figures are only justified by reference to books that are nearly a hundred years out of date and, as J. P. Holding has demonstrated, modern Mithras studies have moved on a good deal. In the few cases where I could check their sources something rather surprising came up. Freke and Gandy are so selective and vague with their references that I could find a statement that totally contradicts their central thesis on the very page that they pointed to.
A couple of examples have surfaced to show we are not dealing with a pair of objective scholars. When dealing with ancient sources they are even more blatant. On the basis of some third century pictures of crucifixions, the authors claim Bacchuus was crucified and Christians copied the idea. This is their piece de resistance and they even put one of the pictures on the cover of their book. But suppose there existed an earlier source who stated categorically that no pagan godman was crucified. That would destroy their case and reading the Jesus Mysteries you would assume that neither Freke or Gandy knew of such a source even if it existed. You would be wrong.
They quote from Justin Martyr many times about his concerns that pagans and Christians had some similar rituals (they did and modern scholarship is totally unsurprised by this). He is a second century writer who therefore predates all the pictures of pagan godmen being crucified and he writes:
"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.” Justin Martyr ’s First Apology LV.
No honest scholar would simply fail to quote this vitally important contradiction to their thesis. Gandy did attempt to explain away this passage when it was presented to him but failed utterly and certainly could not say why he ever felt he could simply miss it out of his book.
The idea that the Christian parallels are just coincidence would stretch credulity to the breaking point. But while it is clear that pagan religions had a strong influence on early Christianity, could there be even more to it? According to Freke and Gandy, there is quite a bit more - early Christianity was, essentially, a mystery religion. But instead of pagan, it was a Jewish version.
So what is the truth? It's unlikely that we'll ever know for sure. But we do know that history is not as clear-cut as orthodox Christian tradition has told everyone and that the existence of a historical Jesus can justifiably be doubted.