fatpie42

Can you remember when they were believed to have been written? Were they 1st century documents?

andrewcriddle

The earliest evidence for a Jewish claim that the father of Jesus was a Roman Soldier is is Celsus according to Origen Contra Celsum Andrew Criddle

wordy

Andrew, much appreciated. Thanks indeed. :thumbs:

I guess it is a too big derail. So maybe it is worth it's own thread.

But fatpie are you really interested in it. Could you start a new thread and ask a Mod to move our posts maybe?

I have no time and motivation to participate though cause even if I find it very interesting it was so far back in time that there is no way to find out the truth about it?

I mean is it christians that want to describe Jews in as bad light as possible or was the Jews provoked to do a retaliation in words for something they where accused?

What is the Jewish view on that text?

fatpie42

Maybe.

In regards to this thread, what actually is this thread about anyway? The title doesn't give much of a clue.

If this thread is about historical evidence for Jesus, this probably isn't too far off the subject. Actually when I come to consider the OP, it's probably pretty relevant:

I think perhaps they meant writings contemporary to Jesus. Even so...

JEST2ASK

I do not doubt the a group of peoples called Philistines existed, or that they worshipped (among many dieties) one or more of the gods listed in the book of Judges. My question was regarding . Again just where did the figure 70% come from and what is its' significance.

What 'scientific" evidence is there of a person named Samson not directly based on the story in the book of Judges? What evidence is there that he was involved in warfare with the Philistines during the time period. What evidence is there that he belonged to one of the Hebrew tribes (it would be nice if there was a specfic tie in to the clan /tribe of Dan)?

Thank You in advance for your response.

IamJoseph

This has historical veracity. The Romans first decreed that marraige with Jews were forbidden. This was later overturned by a new Roman law which sanctioned inter-marraige: this was done to please the Romans bypassing the previous law by having concubines, and this created a problem of offspring which had no legal status and being deemed illegitimate. The new law gave all such offspring Roman status.

Rome made laws for its own benefit - not to cater to any moral/ethical modes. The same applies with the introduction of tarred roads - the purpose was to facilitate speedier conquering and control of lands and nations ['All roads lead to Rome'].

The issue is, while immaculate birth cannot be proven or disproven today - [perhaps the only reason formulised] - it was accepted by Europeans too easily, without any evidence, via firey preachers contracted with this agenda, who never had a clue of its veracity, and never bothered to allow the people to know it was a fully disputed premise in the lands it was reported of - those who rejected this premise were simply presented as the bad guys! Veracity of proof was substituted by 'belief'.


The consequences of immaculate has more far reaching impacts than the resurrection: because it negates both the Gospels and the Quran in one stroke - based on the premise it is false. The Quran condones immaculate [as opposed the resurrection] - as revelation via Mohammed. Here, 3.2 B genuine believers are on the line. Thus it is a burden not just for any one religion, but for humanity itself. Its fiuure points only to disaster waiting ahead for all humanity - currently on pause only by its deflection of Jew/Israel bashing. This stands now because the accusers are also the judge, jury and prosecution. But one day the two king kongs will have to face each other.

The other factor is both those theologies are mutually exclusive of each other: both cannot be true. This inclines, by default, with the Hebrew bible being the more true and correct than the sum of the two. This would be the outcome if this situation was reduced to a court hearing, analogous to two claiming and accusing a third - the judge would have no other choice but to dismiss the two charges - they have unclean hands [a legal tort].

The conclusion is: first let Christianity and Islam decide their story and remove the abject contradictions within them - then accuse someone of the charges. Currently, the two are not just in contradiction of theology, science, maths, history and geography - but resting on the most illogical premise possible. Each must imagine how they would be, or any other nation would be - if in the jews' situation: which ever way the Jews would have taken would be wrong - and remaining as Jews by not taking any of those positions have put them in an even worse situation, as opposed a neutral one. A christian and muslim must thus answer such pivotal impacting questions - rather than selcting what they would like to ask and also answer by themselves - not according to any laws but only by totally contradicting dogmas and doctrines.

Surely your own revered ones would be embarrassed already. The easy answer - blaming the Jews - has a use-by date. First judge your own - then look elsewhere.

IamJoseph

:constern01:

You pose a self-contradiction by not accepting the Philistines - and also asking about proof of historicity! The twain do not go together.

In fact, the factor of the Philistines - and that of their deity Dagon - and that these were pirates from the Agean [not semtic] - and that they embedded themselves in Gaza within a tunnel system - is one of the best proofs for the Samson story. I have never encountered anyone disputing the Philistines - first recorded in the Hebrew writings. It is the neo Pretend Palestinians which is the lie and a total fiction - invented in the 60's!

Re which 70%. I gave you a list of historical evidences. I challenge you to produce any writings which equate with them?

:constern01:

Littlejohn

I'm trying to improve. However I'm grateful for having pointed out my mistakes, which should help me to improve the syntactic and lexical form.

I profit of the present opportunity to apologize to those who read my posts, which are obliged to make an effort "not expected" to interpret correctly what I write.


Littlejohn


PS: ..."tavolino seems to be hard to translate directly" maybe one could trying by "coffee table". But I do not know if the expression "costruire una storia a tavolino" (building a story on or at table) has the same symbolic meaning that it has for us (to invent totally a story or a truth)
.

IamJoseph

I dare say this word may not exist ['fabricate' does not allign with 'invent totally']. When a new term does get coined, it will apply to the Blood Libels and The Protocols nicely. :banghead:

Littlejohn

"..When a new term does get coined, it will apply to the Blood Libels and The Protocols nicely"


????......

Sorry, I don't understand... But, perhaps, it is not very important thing...


Littlejohn

.