The forged Pilate inscription

[JTEM]

The true believers (of any faith) always get
upset when people like me point out the
necessity in viewing religiously significant
"Finds" as suspect, and they always claim
that it's some evil, secularist/atheistic plot
against their one true faith (which ever one
that happens to be). But, nothing could be
further from the truth...

Forgeries are a reality in the art word and
in the case of antiquities. Always have, always
will.

One or two (or more) computers ago I had a
bookmark to a rather interesting story. Originally
it caught my eye because it showcased a piece
I was familiar one, one I had viewed at Boston's
MFA: Am ivory carving.

Well, turns out that this hyper expensive ivory
was not only a forgery, but according to the
story the market was flooded with such forgeries,
so much so that a number of institutions and
collectors would not touch them, viewing any
such "find" with suspicion.

Here's the thing: They have a better record than
religiously significant "finds."

What I'm saying is that where the issues are just
money and desiring something very old, the
institutions an collectors are EXTREMELY distrustful.
But in the case of the so-called Pilate inscription,
we not only have money and the desire for something
old, but also religious and political agendas are on
the line.

There's more motive for forgery, more reason to not
trust....

There is a double standard when it come to "Religious"
artifacts, but it's not coming from people like me. It's
coming from those who defend rubbish because they
want something to be true.

We have all seen people right here in this group
defend nonsense such as the ossuary or the
pomegranate. I have read a "Scientific" report which
had it been published in the defense of a secular
find of a non-historical significance would have resulted
in the universal ridicule of the author. But, because
it was written in defense of a religious hoax it was
defended.

All religious find are by default FORGERIES unless
and until proven otherwise. This is common sense. It's
reasonable. It's necessary. It's the religious people
and their supporters who are stepping over the line,'
stepping outside the normal/acceptable boundaries
and rationalizing their wishful thinking.

Get over it already.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

What client are you using? Your lines come out very short in Thunderbird.

[SolomonW]

Forgeries are a major problem in the art word and antiquities and one must
show due care.


The first point is that its discoverer was Dr Antonio Frova who was both an
art historian as well as an archaeologist. One presumes that he would be
careful for such a thing.

Another problem is why as the existence of Pilate is something that few
doubt. He is also menationed by several non Christian texts, Tacitus and
Philo all who lived about his time mentioned Pilate in their writings and
their writing is considered to be authentic. Josephus may have done so too
but some doubt exists on this.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> The first point is that its discoverer was Dr Antonio Frova who was both an
> art historian as well as an archaeologist. One presumes that he would be
> careful for such a thing.

for context: You have personally defended
forgeries yourself...

> Another problem is why as the existence  of Pilate is something that few
> doubt. He is also menationed by several non Christian texts, Tacitus and
> Philo all who lived about his time

No text exists from this period. All date well
after the period attributed to Jesus. Backdating
was never difficult for anyone with an agenda.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:45:00 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>> The first point is that its discoverer was Dr Antonio Frova who was both an
>> art historian as well as an archaeologist. One presumes that he would be
>> careful for such a thing.
>
> for context: You have personally defended
> forgeries yourself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oded_Golan

I was right the conclusion of Oded Golan's trial was the judge stated,
"that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged.

>
>> Another problem is why as the existence �of Pilate is something that few
>> doubt. He is also menationed by several non Christian texts, Tacitus and
>> Philo all who lived about his time
>
> No text exists from this period. All date well
> after the period attributed to Jesus. Backdating
> was never difficult for anyone with an agenda.
>
>

That could be true for Tacitus but not Philo and what agenda would Philo a
religious Jew had for stating that Pilate existed if he did not?








> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> I was right the conclusion of Oded Golan's trial was the judge stated,
> "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged.

The artifacts weren't on trial.

And we know they were forged. The whole frigging
world knows it.

> > No text exists from this period.  All date well
> > after the period attributed to Jesus.  Backdating
> > was never difficult for anyone with an agenda.
>
> That could be true for Tacitus but not Philo

Cites.

> and what agenda would Philo a
> religious Jew had for stating that Pilate existed
> if he did not?

First off, it is not necessary for Pilate to
be a fabrication in order for the inscription
to be a forgery. Secondly, almost nothing in
the bible is accurate, and believers cling to
the slimmest morsel. A great example is
"Hezekiah's Tunnel" -- as if #1) the existence
of a tunnel would have to be unique to a biblical
jerusalem and #2) this more than makes up for all
the other details it gets wrong, details which
anyone who had ever visited the country could
not possible screw up (like if there was a town
of Nazareth in existence).




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Poetic Justice]

So your "belief" is that;

The Pilate inscription is forged.

The Creationist's "belief" is that God created the Heavens, Earth and
all its creatures including Mankind starting on Sunday Oct. 23, 4004BC.

What do these 2 "beliefs" have in common?

Both provide NO evidence, proof or facts to support their "beliefs".

Can you say 1 is a crackpot "belief" but not the other as they are both
based on the same "belief" concept as truth?

Maybe this will help.

EVIDENCE

1. That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;
proof. 2. Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data
presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which
may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
verb (used with object) 4. To make evident or clear; show clearly;
manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support. 5. To
support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating
letters.

PROOF

1.Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief
in its truth. 2.Anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you
have? 3.The act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to
put a thing to the proof. 4.The establishment of the truth of anything;
demonstration.

FACT

1. Something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no
basis in fact. 2. Something known to exist or to have happened: Space
travel is now a fact. 3. A truth known by actual experience or
observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about
plant growth. 4. Something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 5. Law.. Often,
facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from
its legal effect or consequence.

[Poetic Justice]

JTEM wrote;

>First off, it is not necessary for Pilate to
>be a fabrication in order for the inscription
>to be a forgery.

But you seem to believe he was;

>The only record of any pilate that is
>supposed to be free of any latter day
>revisionism/flurishments is highly dubious.
>It comes from Caesarea and I personally
>believe it's a forgery, at best.

Now if the inscription was of Pilate's predecessor I assume you would
have no problems with that *archaeological* discovery?

Or would you? Because Josephus also mentions him twice and there is a
Jesus connection?

>[Josephus, Jewish Antiquities
>Ant XVIII 2, 2 -- Tiberius sent Valerius
>Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to
>succeed Annius Rufus.]

And Josephus also wrote that Valerius Gratus appointed Caiaphas as High
Priest.

Another forgery to support the NT where he and Pilate are mentioned?

>Secondly, almost nothing in the bible is
>accurate,

And according to you nothing in Pagan or Jewish accounts is either...all
forged just like the inscription.
Very convenient for a believer in the truth such as yourself.

>and believers cling to the slimmest
>morsel.

Yes I can see that very clearly of "believers" even if that "morsel" is
only within their own minds.

[SolomonW]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:32:19 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>> I was right the conclusion of Oded Golan's trial was the judge stated,
>> "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged.
>
> The artifacts weren't on trial.

So why did the judge say it?

>
> And we know they were forged. The whole frigging
> world knows it.
>

Well the judge does not know that.

>
>>> No text exists from this period. �All date well
>>> after the period attributed to Jesus. �Backdating
>>> was never difficult for anyone with an agenda.
>>
>> That could be true for Tacitus but not Philo
>
> Cites.

Check when Philo lived.

>
>> and what agenda would Philo a
>> religious Jew had for stating that Pilate existed
>> if he did not?

<snip - nothing has any relevance to the subject here>

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> JTEM wrote;
>
> >First off, it is not necessary for Pilate to
> >be a fabrication in order for the inscription
> >to be a forgery.
>
> But you seem to believe he was;

So?

I said the only hard evidence for his historical
existence is a forgery. I stand by that.

> >The only record of any pilate that is
> >supposed to be free of any latter day
> >revisionism/flurishments is highly dubious.
> >It comes from Caesarea and I personally
> >believe it's a forgery, at best.
>
> Now if the inscription was of Pilate's predecessor I assume you would
> have no problems with that *archaeological* discovery?

Given the timeline here, wouldn't it make
far more sense? I mean, the city was supposed
to have been built by Herod who was dead before
this Pilate was supposed to be present, yet it's
Pilate dedicating this theater...

> Or would you? Because Josephus also mentions him twice and there is a
> Jesus connection?

I've never accepted Josephus. He's a good starting
point, but that's.

> >Secondly, almost nothing in the bible is
> >accurate,
>
> And according to you nothing in Pagan or Jewish accounts is either...all
> forged just like the inscription.
> Very convenient for a believer in the truth such as yourself.

By Law Jews weren't allowed to teach anything that
contradicted the officially sanctioned version of
the bible.

The fact that Jewish accounts mostly jive is hardly
noteworthy, when until the collapse of the empire
they were required to jive by law.

> >and believers cling to the slimmest
> >morsel.
>
> Yes I can see that very clearly of "believers" even if that "morsel" is
> only within their own minds.

You're cherry picking what you want to be true
and ignoring all the rest.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
> >> I was right the conclusion of Oded Golan's trial was the judge stated,
> >> "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged.
>
> > The artifacts weren't on trial.
>
> So why did the judge say it?

I wouldn't know, because judges don't make
such determinations. You couldn't have
justice if you did.

But, seriously, you honestly think that some
judge knows better than all of archaeology
outside of pseudo "Biblical" archaeology?

> > And we know they were forged.  The whole frigging
> > world knows it.
>
> Well the judge does not know that.

Judges don't make such determinations. They are
legal experts, not historians or archaeologists.

> >>> No text exists from this period. All date well
> >>> after the period attributed to Jesus. Backdating
> >>> was never difficult for anyone with an agenda.
>
> >> That could be true for Tacitus but not Philo
>
> > Cites.
>
> Check when Philo lived.

That wasn't the claim. Your claim is that we have
writings attributed to Philo which date to the first
century. And we don't.

to the best of my knowledge, the oldest manuscript
attributed to Tacitus dates to the 9th century --
some 700 years after any Jesus was supposed to have
lived. If there's any work attributed to Philo which
is older than that I am not aware of it.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> So your "belief" is that;
>
> The Pilate inscription is forged.

The backstory isn't even internally consistent.

> The Creationist's "belief" is that God created the Heavens, Earth and
> all its creatures including Mankind starting on Sunday Oct. 23, 4004BC.

Irrelevant.

> What do these 2 "beliefs" have in common?

You typed them both.

> Both provide NO evidence, proof or facts to support their "beliefs".

Well, all religious "Finds" are by default, by
necessity, considered forgeries. That was my
I was pointing out.

Again, it's not just religious finds. I raised
the example of ivories -- "Ancient" carving which
are frequently forgeries.

> EVIDENCE

I don't see any.

> PROOF

I don't see any.

I see yet-another "find" of religious
significance coming from a place riddled
with religiously significant forgeries,
a "find" that fits the profile of a forgery
like a glove and a "find" that isn't even
internally consistent with it's own claims.

The claim here is that some guy named Herod
the Great built a new city -- a Hellenistic
masterpiece -- but left out a theater. Some
time after his death some Roman guy shows up,
builds the missing theater and dedicates it,
leaving EXACTLY enough letters behind for someone
to uphold it all as "Proof" of biblical accuracy.
EXACTLY enough letters -- not one more or less.

You can claim this "Pilate" rededicated an
existing theater, but if that was something that
can be done then why wasn't it done again at some
point over the next 3 or 4 centuries? Did people
suddenly stop liking having their names set in
stone? Is that it?

> FACT

Okay:

Fact #1. Religiously significant forgeries are
common.

Fact #2. The Pilate inscription fits the profile
of a forgery.

Fact #3. It's existence isn't even consistent with
the history it portends to support.

Fact #4. Religious forgeries always find defenders.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:51:55 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>>> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I was right the conclusion of Oded Golan's trial was the judge stated,
>>>> "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged.
>>
>>> The artifacts weren't on trial.
>>
>> So why did the judge say it?
>
> I wouldn't know, because judges don't make
> such determinations. You couldn't have
> justice if you did.
>
> But, seriously, you honestly think that some
> judge knows better than all of archaeology
> outside of pseudo "Biblical" archaeology?
>

(a)
Actually, the judge has a degree in archaeology and is formally an
archaeologist that is why he was selected.

Furthermore, there were many archaeologists that testified for the defense.

>>> And we know they were forged. �The whole frigging
>>> world knows it.
>>
>> Well the judge does not know that.
>
> Judges don't make such determinations. They are
> legal experts, not historians or archaeologists.
>

see (a) above

>>>>> No text exists from this period. All date well
>>>>> after the period attributed to Jesus. Backdating
>>>>> was never difficult for anyone with an agenda.
>>
>>>> That could be true for Tacitus but not Philo
>>
>>> Cites.
>>
>> Check when Philo lived.
>
> That wasn't the claim. Your claim is that we have
> writings attributed to Philo which date to the first
> century. And we don't.
>
> to the best of my knowledge, the oldest manuscript
> attributed to Tacitus dates to the 9th century --
> some 700 years after any Jesus was supposed to have
> lived.

(b)

It is always a problem as books were then copied with scribes and there is
always a danger that stuff was added or taken out. What we can say with
Tacitus is that he is mentioned repeatedly by other authors. If it's a
forgery, it's on a massive scale and probably very early.

> If there's any work attributed to Philo which
> is older than that I am not aware of it.
>

Check here
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

Note you still have the scribe problem as in (b)




>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Poetic Justice]

>Now if the inscription was of Pilate's
>predecessor I assume you would have no
>problems with that *archaeological*
>discovery?

JTEM wrote;

>Given the timeline here, wouldn't it make
>far more sense? I mean, the city was
>supposed to have been built by Herod
>who was dead before this Pilate was
>supposed to be present,

>yet it's Pilate dedicating this theater...

Really! And where did you get that information other than within your
own mind that Pilate dedicated Herod the Great's theater to Emperor
Tiberius which was built ~40yrs earlier?

Who claimed this? Cite please.

And who claimed this inscription was a dedication to a theater? Cite
please.

>You're cherry picking what you want to be
>true and ignoring all the rest.

Stay Tuned. I'll cherry pick what you *claim* to be true next.

[Poetic Justice]

>So your "belief" is that;
>The Pilate inscription is forged.

JTEM wrote;

>The backstory isn't even internally
>consistent.

*YOU* do not even know the backstory of this archaeological find and
it's PROVEN below and in your previous posts.

All your rants on this and the other thread and you haven't a clue on
this archeological discovery, you don't know its timeline or where or
how it was found.

And you even claim to know what structure Pilate's inscription was
dedicated too, when no else in the World does not even the
archaeologists that found it.

*YET* you know it's a Forgery...Amazing!

>Well, all religious "Finds" are by default,
>by necessity, considered forgeries. That
>was my I was pointing out.

Yet you don't know *anything* about the history of *this* "Find".
How can you know it's a forgery?

>[EVIDENCE]

>I don't see any.

Why? See above and below.

>[PROOF]

>I don't see any.

Why? See above and below.

>I see yet-another "find" of religious
>significance coming from a place riddled
>with religiously significant forgeries,

It's an archaeological "find" that you know *nothing* about. See above
and below.

>a "find" that fits the profile of a forgery like
>a glove and a "find" that isn't even
>internally consistent with it's own claims.

You know *nothing* of "it's own claims". See above and below.

>The claim here is that some guy named
>Herod the Great built a new city -- a
>Hellenistic masterpiece -- but left out a
>theater.

Whose claim is that? Cite please.

It's Your claim and Your's ALONE because you don't know the history of
this "find".

>Some time after his death some Roman
>guy shows up, builds the missing theater

Whose Claim? Cite please.

It's Your claim *ALONE*... Again!

The theater was built between 25-13BC by Herod the Great only YOU claim
"some Roman guy" (Pilate) builds it.

>and dedicates it,

If you knew the inscription's history you would know they have *no idea
what* Pilate dedicated to Emperor Tiberius!
It could have been a latrine for all we know.

>leaving EXACTLY enough letters behind
>for someone to uphold it all as "Proof" of
>biblical accuracy.
>EXACTLY enough letters -- not one more
>or less.

And so *now* there there are enough letters "to uphold it all as "Proof"
of bibical accuracy" when in your other post you claimed *this*?

>Secondly, the inscription itself is highly
>fragmented. There isn't enough there for a
>positive I.D. on anyone.

FLIP-FLOP!

>You can claim this "Pilate" rededicated an
>existing theater,

My Claim? Archaeologist's claim? Cite please.

So *now* we've switched to a "rededicated an existing theater" vs. 'some
Roman guy actually building it'?

>but if that was something that can be
>done then why wasn't it done again at
>some point over the next 3 or 4 centuries?

"Rededicated" in the next 300-400yrs very possible by the later Romans
that's common and more so when the Christians arrive on the scene but
*what* that has nothing to do with *this* 1C inscription?

And it you *knew* the history of this "find" you would know that the
inscription block was hacked-off *elsewhere* and just reused well OVER
300YRS LATER as a part of a set of stairs leading to the theater's
seating.
And found 'In Situ' in 1961.

If you doubt this was commonly done in the later Empire I can perhaps
'google image' some photos for you (Coloseum, Rome's Temple of Saturn,
etc.)?

Usually caused by fires, earthquakes, old age and even to replace 300+
yr old worn steps in theater (I could also 'google image' and possibly
get some photos of ancient worn steps, I've seen ancient worn steps in
person).

Rome's broke, they reuse old stone blocks rather than mining, cutting
and transporting new ones.
You should see some of the inscriptions in *the* Roman Forum during this
period, they look like they were done by a child.

>Did people suddenly stop liking having
>their names set in stone? Is that it?

No. But if you knew the history it's just a 1C stone block reused in a
4C refurbishment and there would be no need to ask that foolish
question.

>[FACT]

>Okay:
>Fact #1. Religiously significant forgeries
>are common.

As they are in art as well, so all the great works are likely forged
because it is common?
Or only if they have a religious reference?

>Fact #2. The Pilate inscription fits the
>profile of a forgery.

And *how* would you know???

You know *nothing* about the inscription's history but still claim it's

a forgery.

>Fact #3. It's existence isn't even
>consistent with the history it portends to
>support.

YOU HAVE PROVEN IT YOURSELF THAT YOU KNOW *NOTHING* ABOUT THE HISTORY IT
PRETENDS TO SUPPORT<PERIOD>

>Fact #4. Religious forgeries always find
>defenders.

It is *you* without any knowledge of this archaeological discovery that
is turning it into a religious forgery.

It's hilarious that if you had actually looked into this "find" vs
ranting about it being a forgery with no proof what so ever you would
actually find something that would support your "idea".

Although it could be fairly somewhat disclaimed it would call into
question whether this inscription is authentic or not. But still an
actual piece of EVIDENCE that would help PROVE what you state as FACT.

But no, you just make wild claims on everything and *never* look for one
shred proof to support you rants.

You once claimed that Hitler didn't commit suicide in his Berlin Bunker
nor was his body later burned in a shallow hole outside the bunker's
entrance.

This puts your "Pilate inscription is a forgery" claim in context and
there are countless others by you.

[Odysseus]

In article <7855-517...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>,
paradi...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

<snip>

>
> PROOF
>
> 1.Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief
> in its truth. 2.Anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you
> have? 3.The act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to
> put a thing to the proof. 4.The establishment of the truth of anything;
> demonstration.

"PROOF, n. Evidence having a shade more of plausibility than of
unlikelihood. The testimony of two credible witnesses as opposed to that
of only one." --Ambrose Bierce

--
Odysseus

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> Really! And where did you get that information other than within your
> own mind that Pilate dedicated Herod the Great's theater to Emperor
> Tiberius which was built ~40yrs earlier?
>
> Who claimed this? Cite please.

The subject /Was/ the Pilate inscription,
last I heard. And this pilate inscription
was found during the excavation of the
theater, or so the legend goes.

> And who claimed this inscription was a dedication to a theater?

That's not even funny. Why are you
arguing when you haven't the faintest
clue?



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> > But, seriously, you honestly think that some
> > judge knows better than all of archaeology
> > outside of pseudo "Biblical" archaeology?
>
> (a)
> Actually, the judge has a degree in archaeology and is formally an
> archaeologist that is why he was selected.

Great. And all of "biblical" archaeology
is comprised of archaeologists who are
presently archaeologists.

Again, judges simply do not make the kinds
of determinations you keep claiming.

The question put to the court was
whether or not evidence was sufficient
to convict A SPECIFIC defendant of
forgery.

Your claims amount to saying that because
O.J. wasn't convicted of murder that means
Nicole is alive...

> > That wasn't the claim.  Your claim is that we have
> > writings attributed to Philo which date to the first
> > century.  And we don't.
>
> > to the best of my knowledge, the oldest manuscript
> > attributed to Tacitus dates to the 9th century --
> > some 700 years after any Jesus was supposed to have
> > lived.
>
> (b)

> It is always a problem as books were then copied with scribes and there is
> always a danger that stuff was added or taken out.

It's not a "Danger" it's a given. Sometimes
the changes are small, sometimes they're huge
but there are always changes. But...

It's also a given that revisionism did take
place -- which people like myself insist on --
that anything transcribed after said revision
would be an example of said revision...

Duh.

> What we can say with
> Tacitus is that he is mentioned repeatedly by
> other authors.

Which means that he would be a prime target
of any revision. Right?

But we know that it went far beyond mere
revision. We know whole works were written
and back dated.

The "Gospel of Philip," for example.

For a non-biblical example (because these falsifications
were never limited to just religion), what
about Prester John?

> If it's a
> forgery, it's on a massive scale and probably very early.

Again, the empire banned any bible that
contradicted the official version. We know
this happened.

Amongst the other blaringly obvious facts, this
requires that there had to be competing versions
for the empire to ban...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> *YOU* do not even know the backstory of this archaeological

dude, you can't even figure out where
I'm getting this theater, talking about
a rock supposedly uncovered during the
excavations of a theater...

You are *So* desperate here...

You're so whacked you don't even know what
you're arguing.

Again, forgeries are COMMON. Concerning
SECULAR finds, like in the example of the
ivories, everyone accepts the doubt-by-default
position and religious artifacts have an
even WORSE record!

Nothing I'm saying would so much as raise an
eyebrow if it weren't for two things:

#1. The religious context.

#2. your desperate need to find fault in me
to the point of inventing it.

Get over it already! Grow up. Move on.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 00:09:11 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>>> But, seriously, you honestly think that some
>>> judge knows better than all of archaeology
>>> outside of pseudo "Biblical" archaeology?
>>
>> (a)
>> Actually, the judge has a degree in archaeology and is formally an
>> archaeologist that is why he was selected.
>
> Great. And all of "biblical" archaeology
> is comprised of archaeologists who are
> presently archaeologists.
>

Indeed

> Again, judges simply do not make the kinds
> of determinations you keep claiming.
>

?????

> The question put to the court was
> whether or not evidence was sufficient
> to convict A SPECIFIC defendant of
> forgery.
>

Yes

> Your claims amount to saying that because
> O.J. wasn't convicted of murder that means
> Nicole is alive...
>

I do not believe that any party in this case stated that Nicole was still
alive.

>>> That wasn't the claim. �Your claim is that we have
>>> writings attributed to Philo which date to the first
>>> century. �And we don't.
>>
>>> to the best of my knowledge, the oldest manuscript
>>> attributed to Tacitus dates to the 9th century --
>>> some 700 years after any Jesus was supposed to have
>>> lived.
>>
>> (b)
>
>> It is always a problem as books were then copied with scribes and there is
>> always a danger that stuff was added or taken out.
>
>
> It's not a "Danger" it's a given. Sometimes
> the changes are small, sometimes they're huge
> but there are always changes. But...
>
> It's also a given that revisionism did take
> place -- which people like myself insist on --
> that anything transcribed after said revision
> would be an example of said revision...
>
> Duh.
>

We do know from the Dead Sea scrolls and other such documents that over a
long period of time despite many revisions documents have been preserved
well.

>> What we can say with
>> Tacitus is that he is mentioned repeatedly by
>> other authors.
>
> Which means that he would be a prime target
> of any revision. Right?
>

Yes

> But we know that it went far beyond mere
> revision. We know whole works were written
> and back dated.
>

Indeed

> The "Gospel of Philip," for example.
>
> For a non-biblical example (because these falsifications
> were never limited to just religion), what
> about Prester John?
>
>> If it's a
>> forgery, it's on a massive scale and probably very early.
>
> Again, the empire banned any bible that
> contradicted the official version. We know
> this happened.

I doubt any empire had the power to do this? The bible was available in
many Empires.

>
> Amongst the other blaringly obvious facts, this
> requires that there had to be competing versions
> for the empire to ban...
>

Why?



>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary" did not purport to be a real dictionary,
it was a humorous work. Bierce was a ver clever writer, often combining
horror and humour in the same story.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[Poetic Justice]

JTEM wrote;

>You're so whacked you don't even know
>what you're arguing.

Yet I just proved that of you just using your own words.

>#2. your desperate need to find fault in me
>to the point of inventing it.

I invented nothing nor did I need too, I only used your very own
statements.

>Get over it already! Grow up. Move on.

And for my advice I'll again use your own words..."so whacked".

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:


> > It's also a given that revisionism did take
> > place -- which people like myself insist on --
> > that anything transcribed after said revision
> > would be an example of said revision...
>
> > Duh.
>
> We do know from the Dead Sea scrolls and other such documents that over a
> long period of time despite many revisions documents have been preserved
> well.

I call foul. You know damn well that the
Dead Sea Scrolls don't support any part of
the New Testament, which is what is at issue
here.

The DSS actually go a long ways towards
disputing the notion of the Christian
bible being the works of any disciples of
Christ. One example -- WHICH I'M SURE YOU
KNOW ABOUT -- is a text that bears an
uncomfortable similarity to the Sermon
On The Mount, suggesting that the later
story of Jesus was an adaptation of
(co-option of) preexisting religious
teachings.

> > Again, the empire banned any bible that
> > contradicted the official version.  We know
> > this happened.
>
> I doubt any empire had the power to do this? The bible was available in
> many Empires.

I've already posted the cite numerous
times, demonstrating that is exactly
what the empire did.

: The Hebrews, then, shall read the sacred
: words; they must reject the versions that
: have not been approved, and not discard
: those which are genuine to make use of
: foreign translations, transmitted orally,
: and devised for the perdition of weak persons.
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps17.htm

They even went further. Here's a 5th century
decree:

: 3. The Emperor Martian to Palladius,
: Prætorian Prefect.
:
: No one, whether he belongs to the clergy, the
: army, or to any other condition of men, shall,
: with a view to causing a tumult and giving
: occasion to treachery, attempt to discuss the
: Christian religion publicly in the presence of
: an assembled and listening crowd; for he
: commits an injury against the most reverend
: Synod who publicly contradicts what has once
: been decided and properly established; as
: those matters relative to the Christian Faith
: have been settled by the priests who met at
: Chalcedony by Our order, and are known to be
: in conformity with the apostolic explanations
: and conclusions of the three hundred and eight
: Holy Fathers assembled in Nicea, and the
: hundred and fifty who met in this Imperial
: City; for the violators of this law shall not
: go unpunished, because they not only oppose
: the true faith, but they also...
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps12.htm

: CHAPTER II.
:
: If, indeed, any persons should presume to
: have atheistic writings in their possession,
: or should deny the Resurrection, the Last
: Judgment, or the birth of God, or should
: say that angels are creatures, We order
: that they shall be expelled from every part
: of the Empire, that they shall be deprived
: of the power of blasphemy, and that the
: punishment of death shall remove such false
: doctrines from the Jewish Nation which
: does not acknowledge the true God.
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps17.htm

> > Amongst the other blaringly obvious facts, this
> > requires that there had to be competing versions
> > for the empire to ban...
>
> Why?

You don't need a law banning competition if there
is no competition.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> Yet I just proved that of you just using your own words.

No you didn't.

Supposedly nobody even knew this stone
existed 60 years ago, and here you are
pretending to know for a fact it's history
over a period of 3 centuries!

Have you counted the number of letters that
actually exist on the stone? There isn't
enough to account for the inscription that
most people pretend to read, let alone your
3 centuries... Sheesh!

The "Reuse" claim is just a rationalization.
It's a way of explaining the stone. That's
all.

Again, this stone was found during the
excavation of a theater. That is a fact.
Your 3 centuries of backstory is NOT a fact.

Stop trying so frigging hard...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 02:40:11 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> It's also a given that revisionism did take
>>> place -- which people like myself insist on --
>>> that anything transcribed after said revision
>>> would be an example of said revision...
>>
>>> Duh.
>>
>> We do know from the Dead Sea scrolls and other such documents that over a
>> long period of time despite many revisions documents have been preserved
>> well.
>
> I call foul. You know damn well that the
> Dead Sea Scrolls don't support any part of
> the New Testament, which is what is at issue
> here.

Hardly irrelevant to the issue of whether the old scribes recorded what
they transcribed accurately.

>
> The DSS actually go a long ways towards
> disputing the notion of the Christian
> bible being the works of any disciples of
> Christ. One example -- WHICH I'M SURE YOU
> KNOW ABOUT -- is a text that bears an
> uncomfortable similarity to the Sermon
> On The Mount, suggesting that the later
> story of Jesus was an adaptation of
> (co-option of) preexisting religious
> teachings.
>
>>> Again, the empire banned any bible that
>>> contradicted the official version. �We know
>>> this happened.
>>
>> I doubt any empire had the power to do this? The bible was available in
>> many Empires.
>
> I've already posted the cite numerous
> times, demonstrating that is exactly
> what the empire did.
>

Where did I say that from the Roman era?

>: The Hebrews, then, shall read the sacred
>: words; they must reject the versions that
>: have not been approved, and not discard
>: those which are genuine to make use of
>: foreign translations, transmitted orally,
>: and devised for the perdition of weak persons.
> http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps17.htm
>
> They even went further. Here's a 5th century
> decree:
>
>: 3. The Emperor Martian to Palladius,

>: Pr�torian Prefect.

By this time not one empire controlled the sacred texts.

> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Yusuf B Gursey]

which other empire?

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> > I call foul.  You know damn well that the
> > Dead Sea Scrolls don't support any part of
> > the New Testament, which is what is at issue
> > here.
>
> Hardly irrelevant to the issue of whether the old scribes recorded what
> they transcribed accurately.

It's irrelevant, because nobody is claiming that
Christianity is the result of a transcription error.

Nobody is claiming that Christianity resulted from
an error.

But your characterization of the DSS as somehow
identical to modern texts is just plain false. Not
only are there a great many differences between the
texts, but quite a lot of the DSS body had been lost
to modern religion.

but, as I already said:

> > The DSS actually go a long ways towards
> > disputing the notion of the Christian
> > bible being the works of any disciples of
> > Christ. One example -- WHICH I'M SURE YOU
> > KNOW ABOUT -- is a text that bears an
> > uncomfortable similarity to the Sermon
> > On The Mount, suggesting that the later
> > story of Jesus was an adaptation of
> > (co-option of) preexisting religious
> > teachings.

*** *** ***

> >>> Again, the empire banned any bible that
> >>> contradicted the official version.  We know
> >>> this happened.
>
> >> I doubt any empire had the power to do this? The bible was available in
> >> many Empires.
>
> > I've already posted the cite numerous
> > times, demonstrating that is exactly
> > what the empire did.
>
> Where did I say that from the Roman era?

Simple: Show us these conflicting texts.

They had to exist. The empire was banning them
left & right. So, show them to us.

> > You don't need a law banning competition if there
> > is no competition.
>
> By this time not one empire controlled the sacred texts.

So show them to us.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[SolomonW]

Well, 2000 years ago large number of Jews lived in Iran, and a number lived
in Yemen. These were areas outside of Roman control.

[SolomonW]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 19:44:49 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
>>> I call foul.  You know damn well that the
>>> Dead Sea Scrolls don't support any part of
>>> the New Testament, which is what is at issue
>>> here.
>>
>> Hardly irrelevant to the issue of whether the old scribes recorded what
>> they transcribed accurately.
>
> It's irrelevant, because nobody is claiming that
> Christianity is the result of a transcription error.
>
> Nobody is claiming that Christianity resulted from
> an error.
>

I agree with this then.

> But your characterization of the DSS as somehow
> identical to modern texts is just plain false. Not
> only are there a great many differences between the
> texts, but quite a lot of the DSS body had been lost
> to modern religion.

The most important contributions of the Dea Sea Scrolls is that they have
demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text.

>
> but, as I already said:
>
>>> The DSS actually go a long ways towards
>>> disputing the notion of the Christian
>>> bible being the works of any disciples of
>>> Christ. One example -- WHICH I'M SURE YOU
>>> KNOW ABOUT -- is a text that bears an
>>> uncomfortable similarity to the Sermon
>>> On The Mount, suggesting that the later
>>> story of Jesus was an adaptation of
>>> (co-option of) preexisting religious
>>> teachings.
>

There are similarity between the Sermon on the Mount and various known
teachings and phrases in the Dead Sea scrolls but there is no single
document that comes even remotely close to the Sermon on the Mount.

What I think happened is that Christ was a man of his time.

> *** *** ***
>
>>>>> Again, the empire banned any bible that
>>>>> contradicted the official version.  We know
>>>>> this happened.
>>
>>>> I doubt any empire had the power to do this? The bible was available in
>>>> many Empires.
>>
>>> I've already posted the cite numerous
>>> times, demonstrating that is exactly
>>> what the empire did.
>>
>> Where did I say that from the Roman era?
>
> Simple: Show us these conflicting texts.
>
> They had to exist. The empire was banning them
> left & right. So, show them to us.

Why did they have to exist?

>
>>> You don't need a law banning competition if there
>>> is no competition.
>>
>> By this time not one empire controlled the sacred texts.
>
> So show them to us.

I do not understand, for your information in Roman times many Jews lived
under the Persian empire.




>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Yusuf B Gursey]

oh, I thought he was talking about the New Testament.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:


> The most important contributions of the Dea Sea Scrolls is that they have
> demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text.

No. It one thing to say that what is
accepted as the O.T./Torah today is
(FSVO) relatively stable, but it's quite
a stretch to claim that what is today
accepted as the O.T./Torah has always
been accepted as the O.T./Torah.

For example...

> There are similarity between the Sermon on the Mount and various known
> teachings and phrases in the Dead Sea scrolls but there is no single
> document that comes even remotely close to the Sermon on the Mount.

So there is a great deal of text found
within the DSS that was DROPPED sometimes
between their being written and out present
O.T./Torah being compiled. The best and most
important example would be "The War Scroll."
It's usually dismissed as the rantings of the
Essene fringe, but I see it as the Ancient
Jewish equivalent to "The Book of Revelations,"
only more influential.

"Revelations" drives modern day Christian
fundamentalists/evangelicals, and that's in our
modern age. In my mind there is ZERO doubt that
the War Scroll -- teachings found within -- were
just as powerful, just as influential to the
Jewish population of the time as the Book of
Revelations is to fundamentalist Protestant sects
in our skeptical age...

We can't account for the three rebellions without
it!

> What I think happened is that Christ was a man of his time.

Several, perhaps, and certainly a number of men
going centuries BEFORE his time.

> > They had to exist.  The empire was banning them
> > left & right.  So, show them to us.
>
> Why did they have to exist?

Who do the books the empire was banning have
to exist? Because they wouldn't have to ban
non-existing books.

> I do not understand, for your information in Roman times many Jews lived
> under the Persian empire.

I don't understand. Show us the competing
books. I don't care where they came from,
just show us the conflicting books.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:


> oh, I thought he was talking about the New Testament.

I am talking about the New Testament. Though
I dispute that there are any 2,000 year old
bible/Torahs from ANYWHERE, including Iran.

I also dispute the notion that the DSS demonstrate
any type of continuity. Though, granted, this type
of call does appear to be a great deal more subjective
than objective...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

You actually have something here, eg some scrolls seem to point to one
Messiah, while others posit both a royal and a priestly Messiah. Golb
argues that they are not from one group at all, but simply a library.
Try to be more discriminating.

[Martin Edwards]

The book of Job that we now have is heavily Arabized, which may have
occurred as late as the ninth century, and in Spain, though it is
clearly based on an ancient story.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

reference!

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > The book of Job that we now have is heavily Arabized, which may have
> > occurred as late as the ninth century, and in Spain, though it is
> > clearly based on an ancient story.
>
> reference!

: But the style of Job is not really Mosaic; Moses
: uses the name of Yahweh often whereas Job uses
: other names, Job uses Arabic words unlike Moses,
: Moses would not have been familiar with Arabic
: customs, opinions, and manners
http://bible.org/article/introduction-book-job

I have long suspected that the Nabataeans were the
source of much of the "Hebrew" culture in the
bible, which would also explain a few of the strange
contradictions -- like the heavy influx of a
nomadic lifestyle in a people who were supposedly
living in cities at least a thousand years before
Alexander the Great. Turns out that the Nabataeans
not only glorified such a lifestyle, but made some
attempt to retain -- living in tents, for example,
even as they were building magnificent permanent
structures such as at Petra.

They also bring the tradition of the invisible God.

I'm not saying that the Nabataeans gave us the
bible, I'm saying that I believe they were the
final piece of the mosaic which is the O.T.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> You actually have something here, eg some scrolls seem to point to one
> Messiah, while others posit both a royal and a priestly Messiah.  Golb
> argues that they are not from one group at all, but simply a library.
> Try to be more discriminating.

I don't know what you mean about "discriminating."

We've always known that the whole "Essenes" thing
nonsense. The archaeology of Qumran has always
settled that matter. This was no reclusive religious
cult! And without Qumran you have no "essenes" to
speak of. Period.

The scrolls themselves have always disproven the
reclusive religious cult nonsense. They include
texts in a number of languages, including personal
records and at least on Greek play that I know of.
Finally, they're not even limited to Jews! I can
recall, a few years back, the Petra exhibit at the
Museum of Natural History in NYC -- they talked
about such finds being associated with the Nabataeans
(some of whom were either converts or intermarried),
and they included at least one copy of a divorce
record!

So we have a bunch of texts which on their own can't
be pinned to any reclusive group, not even a particular
ethnicity or location, and as far as anyone can tell
for certain there is no religious colony in the area.

These are EXACTLY what they appear to be: A sampling
of the recorded words from the people of the region.
They reflect what was popularly taught/believed at
the time, and not the views of some tiny minority.



-- --

htp://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> > Well, 2000 years ago large number of Jews lived in Iran, and a number lived
> > in Yemen. These were areas outside of Roman control.
>
> oh, I thought he was talking about the New Testament.

P.S.

I am talking about the N.T., but that doesn't
change the fact that no bible/Torah exists from
some 2000 years ago and that the DSS do not show
that the bible/Torah has gone unrevised.

Heck, the Koran has seen it's share of revision,
and it's the newest, least subjected to political
intrigue between the three traditions: Torah,
Christian bible & koran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_manuscripts

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/oskar/palimpsest.html

The one constant to religious texts is that
they all changed.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

On 06/05/2013 11:15, JTEM wrote:
> I don't know what you mean about "discriminating."

I was referring not to that post but to some others.

[Martin Edwards]

I see a lot of this stuff on tv. I think it was a reference to the
Umayyad Empire where Hebrew, according to them, became more
sophisticated under the influence of Arabic. I applied a bit of
inductive logic. I did say "may have".

[Yusuf B Gursey]

that is true, and it seems that there are indeed Arabisms in the Book
of Job. but the Arabisms in the Book of Job, which I intend to
investigate, are thought to have come not from the Judeo-Arabic of
Muslim Spain, but from Ancient Arab - Hebrew contacts.

[Martin Edwards]

Well yes, "thought to", but is it not interesting how concensus thinking
picks what is most helpful to Judeo-Christian mythology?