Archaeology and the Bible.
Archaeology and the Bible.
The ones that were confirmed were never doubted in the first place. The ones that ARE in doubt are the ones that apparently have most significance - Jesus himself, for instance.
Archaeology and the Bible.
FourPart;1492233 wrote: The ones that were confirmed were never doubted in the first place. The ones that ARE in doubt are the ones that apparently have most significance - Jesus himself, for instance.
Well its true, we don't have a lot on Jesus, just some circumstancial evidence. We have two of his possible gravesites, the house of Mary and Martha his friends, the river Jordan he was baptized in is still there, as is the city of Jerusalem he walked in. We have the gate he was marched through on his way to be crucified, we have where he was crucified, we have the bones of the black man who helped carry his cross, and we have the actual bones of a priest who slapped him that night before he faced Pilate. We have a stone from the spot he stood on before Pilate. We have the garden he prayed in that night. We have about 23 historical writers who went on record and mentioned him.
Not much else.
Well its true, we don't have a lot on Jesus, just some circumstancial evidence. We have two of his possible gravesites, the house of Mary and Martha his friends, the river Jordan he was baptized in is still there, as is the city of Jerusalem he walked in. We have the gate he was marched through on his way to be crucified, we have where he was crucified, we have the bones of the black man who helped carry his cross, and we have the actual bones of a priest who slapped him that night before he faced Pilate. We have a stone from the spot he stood on before Pilate. We have the garden he prayed in that night. We have about 23 historical writers who went on record and mentioned him.
Not much else.
Archaeology and the Bible.
There are remains which are simply said to be those claimed.
There is no evidence that he ever existed. Therefore there can be no evidence of anyone having interacted with him.
The entire region is bound to contain the remnants of those that have died, both of natural causes & those that were slain.
As we are all painfully aware the Middle East has not progressed much in a couple of thousand years, and they still continue to kill people in barbaric ways, such as by crucifixion, so there are bound to be a great deal of remains of victims of crucifixion as well. If one is found, you cannot claim that this has to be the remains of Jesus. It could obviously be any one of them. Similarly the story of anyone carrying the cross in the first place is merely hearsay. Even the accepted symbol of the cross used is questionable as the favoured style used by the Romans was in the X style, at ground level, as opposed to the iconic raised 'T' style, which would not have been possible for any one man to carry in the first place. Also, being nailed to the cross would have simply torn through the flesh & wouldn't have had the strength to maintain the weight at raised level - he would have been tied. You cannot use the 'evidence' of having found the remains of someone who may have encountered him or not when he was alive as evidence of his existence. It is merely evidence that the person who the remains were of once existed. Most of the time there isn't even any evidence as to who that person even was. It certainly doesn't prove the existence of anyone else.
Queen Victoria is known to have existed. Buckingham Palace still exists. 221b Baker Street still exists. In the Sherlock Holmes stories it is said that Holmes met with Queen Victoria. Are we then to take the evidence of the first 3 instances as proof that Sherlock Holmes really did exist & that he really did meet Queen Victoria? Your examples are really no different. They use the existence of places & people that are known to exist to quantify the existence of another who, to all intents & purposes, was most likely fictional.
There is no evidence that he ever existed. Therefore there can be no evidence of anyone having interacted with him.
The entire region is bound to contain the remnants of those that have died, both of natural causes & those that were slain.
As we are all painfully aware the Middle East has not progressed much in a couple of thousand years, and they still continue to kill people in barbaric ways, such as by crucifixion, so there are bound to be a great deal of remains of victims of crucifixion as well. If one is found, you cannot claim that this has to be the remains of Jesus. It could obviously be any one of them. Similarly the story of anyone carrying the cross in the first place is merely hearsay. Even the accepted symbol of the cross used is questionable as the favoured style used by the Romans was in the X style, at ground level, as opposed to the iconic raised 'T' style, which would not have been possible for any one man to carry in the first place. Also, being nailed to the cross would have simply torn through the flesh & wouldn't have had the strength to maintain the weight at raised level - he would have been tied. You cannot use the 'evidence' of having found the remains of someone who may have encountered him or not when he was alive as evidence of his existence. It is merely evidence that the person who the remains were of once existed. Most of the time there isn't even any evidence as to who that person even was. It certainly doesn't prove the existence of anyone else.
Queen Victoria is known to have existed. Buckingham Palace still exists. 221b Baker Street still exists. In the Sherlock Holmes stories it is said that Holmes met with Queen Victoria. Are we then to take the evidence of the first 3 instances as proof that Sherlock Holmes really did exist & that he really did meet Queen Victoria? Your examples are really no different. They use the existence of places & people that are known to exist to quantify the existence of another who, to all intents & purposes, was most likely fictional.
Archaeology and the Bible.
FourPart;1492275 wrote: There are remains which are simply said to be those claimed.
There is no evidence that he ever existed. .
I disagree, there is circumstantial evidence that Jesus existed, and circumstantial evidence is enough to put someone in jail, so it means something.
There is no evidence that he ever existed. .
I disagree, there is circumstantial evidence that Jesus existed, and circumstantial evidence is enough to put someone in jail, so it means something.
Archaeology and the Bible.
Mickiel;1492320 wrote: I disagree, there is circumstantial evidence that Jesus existed, and circumstantial evidence is enough to put someone in jail, so it means something.
Hearsay is not the same as circumstantial evidence. In convicting someone circumstantial evidence might be where forensic evidence can place someone at the scene of a crime. It is not, evidence that they actually committed the crime once they were there. If, however, there was no other reason for them to have been there, then that is more likely to be sufficient evidence to convict on. Hearsay is more like someone attesting to the fact that they heard someone down the pub say that their mate saw someone go into the place.
Romans were good at recording things. There is no record of a census. There would be no reason for anyone to return to their place of birth even if there was. And that's just the start of the myth. The entire Bible is made up of 3rd party reports of when only 2 parties were present - like the unseen cameraman when you watch a film & forget that there has to be someone else present. 'Miracles' which can be & have been repeated by all sorts of illusionists these days. The whole story is nothing but politics - and we all know what stories politicians make up about their predecessors & non-existent scapegoats.
Hearsay is not the same as circumstantial evidence. In convicting someone circumstantial evidence might be where forensic evidence can place someone at the scene of a crime. It is not, evidence that they actually committed the crime once they were there. If, however, there was no other reason for them to have been there, then that is more likely to be sufficient evidence to convict on. Hearsay is more like someone attesting to the fact that they heard someone down the pub say that their mate saw someone go into the place.
Romans were good at recording things. There is no record of a census. There would be no reason for anyone to return to their place of birth even if there was. And that's just the start of the myth. The entire Bible is made up of 3rd party reports of when only 2 parties were present - like the unseen cameraman when you watch a film & forget that there has to be someone else present. 'Miracles' which can be & have been repeated by all sorts of illusionists these days. The whole story is nothing but politics - and we all know what stories politicians make up about their predecessors & non-existent scapegoats.
Archaeology and the Bible.
FourPart;1492326 wrote: Hearsay is not the same as circumstantial evidence. In convicting someone circumstantial evidence might be where forensic evidence can place someone at the scene of a crime. It is not, evidence that they actually committed the crime once they were there. If, however, there was no other reason for them to have been there, then that is more likely to be sufficient evidence to convict on. Hearsay is more like someone attesting to the fact that they heard someone down the pub say that their mate saw someone go into the place.
Romans were good at recording things. There is no record of a census. There would be no reason for anyone to return to their place of birth even if there was. And that's just the start of the myth. The entire Bible is made up of 3rd party reports of when only 2 parties were present - like the unseen cameraman when you watch a film & forget that there has to be someone else present. 'Miracles' which can be & have been repeated by all sorts of illusionists these days. The whole story is nothing but politics - and we all know what stories politicians make up about their predecessors & non-existent scapegoats.
Well I disagree with you, we have circumstantial evidence of Jesus. Again we have two possible tombs that he was buried in. We have the hill he was killed on. WE have the bone box of the man selected to help him carry whatever it was that he was hung on, ( be that a log, a beam, some type of cross-- whatever.), we have the gate they marched him through that day they killed him. WE have historical record of Pilate who condemned him, and the bone box of a Priest who judged him and slapped him- I mean we got this guys bones! We have the river he was baptized in, and the city he preached in, several cities in fact! My goodness, we have the actual house of two of his best friends! We have the garden he prayed in that night he was captured. We have the house of one of his disciples!
Hey, I am not a lawyer but I would take that to court any day!
Romans were good at recording things. There is no record of a census. There would be no reason for anyone to return to their place of birth even if there was. And that's just the start of the myth. The entire Bible is made up of 3rd party reports of when only 2 parties were present - like the unseen cameraman when you watch a film & forget that there has to be someone else present. 'Miracles' which can be & have been repeated by all sorts of illusionists these days. The whole story is nothing but politics - and we all know what stories politicians make up about their predecessors & non-existent scapegoats.
Well I disagree with you, we have circumstantial evidence of Jesus. Again we have two possible tombs that he was buried in. We have the hill he was killed on. WE have the bone box of the man selected to help him carry whatever it was that he was hung on, ( be that a log, a beam, some type of cross-- whatever.), we have the gate they marched him through that day they killed him. WE have historical record of Pilate who condemned him, and the bone box of a Priest who judged him and slapped him- I mean we got this guys bones! We have the river he was baptized in, and the city he preached in, several cities in fact! My goodness, we have the actual house of two of his best friends! We have the garden he prayed in that night he was captured. We have the house of one of his disciples!
Hey, I am not a lawyer but I would take that to court any day!
Archaeology and the Bible.
For there to be evidence of the existence of anyone to have interacted with anyone, there has to be evidence that the one they interacted with existed in the first place. There is no evidence that this person existed, therefore there is no evidence that the person who is claimed to have interacted with him ever existed. The most there is, as far as 'evidence' is concerned, is the remains of someone who they 'claim' might have been that person who might have interacted with someone who may or may not have even existed.
How many people lived & died in that era? How many tombs were there? What is the chance that we just happen to stumble on the 'right' one?
Don't you see how ridiculous it all is?
You say you would go to court with circumstantial evidence of that nature. Can you imagine it?
"I believe a man spoke to the witness".
"What man?"
"The one who spoke to the witness".
"What witness?"
"The one who spoke to the man".
"What man?"
"The man we have the remnants of".
"How do we know the remnants are that of the man you speak of?"
"Because he is the one who spoke to the witness".
"What witness?"
"The one who spoke to the man".
"How do we know this witness even exists?"
"Because he spoke to the man".
"What man?"
"The man who spoke to the witness".
It's worse than "Who's on first" - at least that makes sense.
Incontrovertible Circumstantial Evidence? I rest my case.
How many people lived & died in that era? How many tombs were there? What is the chance that we just happen to stumble on the 'right' one?
Don't you see how ridiculous it all is?
You say you would go to court with circumstantial evidence of that nature. Can you imagine it?
"I believe a man spoke to the witness".
"What man?"
"The one who spoke to the witness".
"What witness?"
"The one who spoke to the man".
"What man?"
"The man we have the remnants of".
"How do we know the remnants are that of the man you speak of?"
"Because he is the one who spoke to the witness".
"What witness?"
"The one who spoke to the man".
"How do we know this witness even exists?"
"Because he spoke to the man".
"What man?"
"The man who spoke to the witness".
It's worse than "Who's on first" - at least that makes sense.
Incontrovertible Circumstantial Evidence? I rest my case.
Archaeology and the Bible.
I agree that circumstantial evidence is faulty;
Hey, check these vids out;
The Bible, Archeology, and Science
Hey, check these vids out;
The Bible, Archeology, and Science
Archaeology and the Bible.
10 Great Biblical Artifacts at the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem - Biblical Archaeology Society
Archaeology and the Bible.
Abel Beth Maacah, Israel - Find a Dig
Apollonia-Arsuf, Israel - Find a Dig
Ashdod-Yam, Israel - Find a Dig
Ashkelon, Israel - Find a Dig
Azekah, Israel - Find a Dig
Apollonia-Arsuf, Israel - Find a Dig
Ashdod-Yam, Israel - Find a Dig
Ashkelon, Israel - Find a Dig
Azekah, Israel - Find a Dig
Archaeology and the Bible.
Bethsaida Biblical Archaeology Project, Israel - Find a Dig
Archaeology and the Bible.
Mount Zion, Israel - Find a Dig
Archaeology and the Bible.
Palestinian Tunnels - Find A Dig
Archaeology and the Bible.
FourPart;1492742 wrote: Palestinian Tunnels - Find A Dig
Manot Cave, Israel - Find a Dig
Manot Cave, Israel - Find a Dig
Archaeology and the Bible.
Hey, check out the " City of the Dead;"
The Heritage and Community: Documenting the "City Of The Dead", Egypt - Find a Dig
The Heritage and Community: Documenting the "City Of The Dead", Egypt - Find a Dig
Archaeology and the Bible.
The Isle of Wight was originally a Roman Burial Ground (from Vectis - of the dead). That makes a far more interesting history. Plus the IoW is rich in Dinosaur remains.
Archaeology and the Bible.
Hey, look at this;
Petra Garden and Pool Project, Jordan - Find a Dig
Petra Garden and Pool Project, Jordan - Find a Dig
Archaeology and the Bible.
Son Real, Mallorca (Spain) - Find a Dig