Quote:
Originally Posted by spot
Not at all. If you want to confirm the biblical accounts occurred in Palestine then the historical record needs to be a glove that fits, I don't see how you can pretend it's optional. Starting from a position of saying the bible is true as an article of faith is pointless in this context. The extent to which you can provide that physical evidence from archaeology is the extent to which you can offer your confirmation. You presumably agree there are problems, at least.
|
I have not encountered any problems, but I have encountered infutable evidence such as the actual house of Mary and Martha, two people who walked and talked with Jesus, and Jesus often stayed in the house on his visits, Matt.21:17;26:6;John 12:1,2. Here we again have place and thing. We have actual geographic, and actual object. I have pictures of the house, its really well preserved, the Archaeologist did a good job working this one.
The house is in Bethany, and recent finds by the National Geographic team, may have well found the actual ossasries, or " Caskets" of Mary and other friends and relitives of Jesus. Go to their site and reference " The Tomb of Jesus." When you have the place that someone died in, as well as their bones or casket, its hard to dispute that they lived, its just common sense to me.
Did you know they have unearthed the actual tomb of Lazarus, the one Jesus raised from the dead in John 11:1-44? I mean they got this tomb man. They also have unearthed the Tomb of Joseph, I got pictures of both Tombs. I mean this is the actual Tomb that Joseph bought and owned, hewn into a hillside in a garden near where Christ was Crucified, and it all fits into the biblical account. They took Jesus body to this logical location. John 19:38-42. Again we have actual gravesite, actual geographic, the city this occured in, and biblical characthers who were directly involved with Christ.
It don't get no simpler than that.
Peace.
Peace.