IamJoseph
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by IamJoseph
-
-
The Gloabal Arab Network has reported the discovery of Hellenist and Roman period temples in central Syria. The full article is quoted below but without the accompanying photograph.Syria (Damascus) - Archaeologists have unearthed an archaeological temple dating back to the Hellenistic and Roman eras /150 B.C/ in addition to a stone-made bridge dating back to the Roman era.
The findings were uncovered in the village of al-Bared River, 20 kms to the west north of Apamea, central Syrian Province of Hama.
Director of Hama Antiquities Department Jamal Ramadan said that the temple was built near a spring with a distinguished architectural style and a very huge size, adding that it was built of 210-centimeters long and 170-cenetimeters wide stones inscribed from their internal side.
The square-shaped temple includes a single hall. Studies showed that the temple was built over two different historical phases, the oldest of which is the Hellenistic Era as the temple was built according to the Hellenistic architectural style while the second stage is the Roman Era where many huge buildings were built.
The unearthed stone-made bridge dates back to the Roman Era. It consists of stone pieces. The rock bridge is 10-meter long and 3-meter wide. The bridge has three asymmetric arches.(SANA)
When Rome conquered a nation, it erected manuments with its ensigns of Jupiter in the most central places. This find represents the early period of conquest of a host of states like Syria, Egypt, Moab, Judea, Babylonia, etc and marks the period of Rome's take over of all that was the Greek empire. The 150 BC date was the end of the war of Carthage.
-
The hoard apparently contains the largest number of coins ever found together of the rebel British emperor Carausius, who ruled the province from 286 to 293.
The price of all old coins will take a dive after such a large find. However, it is a good history affirming discovery.
-
I would be grateful if you could explain how your comments about Josephus, who was writing in the late First Century AD, and any change in how shekels were described around that period fits into this discovery.
No, of course it does not connect with Britain, but it can be seen applicable to coins of the Roman era. I thought it may be interesting to coin hobbyists who may throw some light on this item.
-
BBC is reporting on the discovery last April of one of the largest coin hoards found in Britain. A documentary on the find will form part of their Digging for Britain series in August but it is worth noting that the detectorist acted very responsibly by immmediately contacting the Portable Antiquities Scheme when he made the discovery allowing them to fully excavate the find.
A find of a coin marked as 'Shekel [coin] of Israel' would be of the greatest interest as well as confirming the Josephus reports. Josephus says that the coins marked as 'Shekel of Judea' was changed to 'Shekel of Israel' - during the period of Rome's wars with the Jews, because the Jews wanted the Latin name of Judea [Ludea] removed from their country.
Interestingly, this also says that before the name of Palestine was applied to Judea by Rome - this land was called Israel some 2000 years ago. Finding such a coin would be a big lottery sized winfall.
-
Archaeologists have discovered evidence to support the theory that St Peter was imprisoned in an underground dungeon by the Emperor Nero before being crucified. The Mamertine Prison, a dingy complex of cells which now lies beneath a Renaissance church, has long been venerated as the place where the apostle was shackled before he was killed on the spot on which the Vatican now stands. It been a place of Christian worship since medieval times, but after months of excavations, Italian archaeologists have found frescoes and other evidence which indicate that it was associated with St Peter as early as the 7th century...
...read the full article at the Telegraph
St Paul was sent to Rome because he requested a Roman trial, as opposed being tried in Jerusalem. There is no evidence here of a trial, which says Rome did not indulge in such trials. It is possible that those considered heretics [Nero resurrected Caligula's Heresy decree] - were not afforded any forebearence.
This is post Jesus' period by some 20 years and the heresy factor was not officially implemented, though a strong anti-Jewish doctrine prevailed. If Paul was executed - it seems implausable that Jesus would have been given a trial as recorded in the Gospels, and there is no historical proof of such a trial. It seems like both Paul and Jesus would have been killed simply for being Jewish and spreading the teachings of the Hebrew religion.
-
Who were the romans and who were the christians? When Constantinopole rise as a capital ? and what is Byzantine Turkey?
Romans are pre-christian; Byzantine Turkey = when turkey was in the Byzantine reign.
Do you think Abraham and Moses are historical figures?There's no proof yet, but loads of evidence - more so than for Jesus or mohammed. King david was declared a myth by scholars, but this has been reversed by the Tel Dan find of a 3000 year House of David monument. Nothing in the OT has ever been disproved, rendering it the most vindicated historical document in existence.
-
Btw the christian kingdom of Axum had contact with mecca i think/...
They've always had.
there is a report there was a Missionary who had close contacts with Mohammed. Anyone hear of this?Yes, and he had contact with Jews also and had distant cousins who were Jews and Christians. His tribe believed in the Moon God Allah. He decided to create his own religion taking second hand facts from Jews and Christians and creating his own religion.
I cannot see how Islam can report about the past, such as Abraham and Moses, which events occured 2000 years earlier. There was no arabic writings till 350-450 CE, meaning it was quite implausable to have any correct recall of dates, family names and events of that time - save for taking this information from someone or somewhere else, who had historical knowledge by virtue of a written script.
The response to such a question is generally vested in belief, namely that this information was derived via revelation and enlightenment, while the Quran remains in contradiction of both Judaism and christianity's scriptures and their versions of revelation and enlightenment. The issue here is, that a 'belief' is countered against historical facts, which is unacceptable from the premise an on the ground fact must transcend a belief, else truth and veracity has no meaning. A belief can only be a counter to another belief, not against historical fact, and also in contradiction of precedent ones from all sectors. IOW, it is unacceptable that one can call a spade as a flower, based on belief.
What are you talking about? Three religions? The Roman Empire of the seventh century was thoroughly Christian.Yes, three religions evolved from here, and the osmosis of the roman empire into christianity represents one of those beliefs. Islam is represented by the religion which arose from the Arabs. Christianity did not emerge in a vacuum of itself, but an amalgamation of Judaic and European (Roman & Greek) influences.
-
Just to be clear here... the Roman Empire did not cease to exist in AD 476 (insert whichever date on whichever calendar you prefer), but continued for another millennium. The rise of islam had a very direct impact on the fortunes of this so-called "Byzantine" empire, and is a perfectly reasonable topic of discussion.
This means when Islam emerged, they would have interaction with both the Romans - in descent, and a fairly established sector of christianity - in ascent. The latter would have been in a process of absorbing the former, while also confronting an emerging opposition with Islam, which rejected christianity and was in its own ascent stage. At this time, there were three religions from one, all being mutually exclusive of each other's fulcrum doctrines, an obvious recipe for disaster looming. A retrospectic look at this impossible scenario clarifies what occured, and how this scenario effects the world today. Obviously, all three cannot be right in their doctrines or reportings of history.
It seems that Islam's scriptures and doctrines were a response more to christian scriptures, because its names are Latin-based more than the Judaic, eg: Ibrahim, with a 'B' alligns when Abraham, not with the V in the Hebrew Avraham. Also, Judaism was in its worst descent here. The inclusion of Jesus in Islamic scripture also alligns with the christian writings than with the Roman Empire. This says, IMHO, there was an immense interaction between early Islam and Christianity, and that Islam being Middle-eastern, did not accept christian scripture's core beliefs, while it did so of Judaism, possibly because there was the notion Israel was past history. However, both christianity and Islam's variances regarding the OT cannot be both correct - they contradict each other. This says that the interaction of Islam with Christianity emerged before Constantinople and Byzantine Turkey, and that all of the conflicts in this region stem from the disputes between christianity and islam - Judaism being a non-entity for many centuries, and relevent only recently, around '48.
-
[
[iamjoseph
But there were no muslims in the Roman Empire. Rome fell before islam emerged.
How can you say that when Constantine the great in 330AD moved the capital of the roman civilization from Rome the city to Constantinople?I still dont know why people think the Roman civilization fell at 450AD or whatever year it was.Its kind of funny when you think about it b/c when the western side fell and lost Rome the city it was not even the capital of this great civilization.So iamjoeseph you need to get your facts right that the roman civilization fell at 1453.What a long time it lasted=753BC to 1453AD
I never mentioned Rome or any Capital city, only that there was no interaction with Islam by Roman empire, but this has been qualified to include christianity.
So, you think that the impact of christianity on the Roman Empire it's less interesting then that on Islam!No, nor did I say so. But if your talking muslims and christian interaction, one of the first points would be Mecca.
-
But there were no muslims in the Roman Empire. Rome fell before islam emerged.
As was mentioned earlier, the entity named as the 'Roman empire' does not necessarily end with the fall of Rome in the 5th century, but extends to include the Byzantine/Roman Empire. In that light, there were indeed muslims in the (eastern) Roman empire.
Ok, so it refers to Roman Christianity, which would have impacted with islam a couple of centuries later. More interesting, is the impact of christianity not in Byrantine, but in Mecca: there is a report there was a Missionary who had close contacts with Mohammed. Anyone hear of this?
-
I dont mean to offend anyone but how on earth did we get from discussing muslims within the eastern empire to discussing the acts of crusaders and the Jewish people..?
I believe these were all responsa to items in posts. However, moslems and jews are certainly not off topic with the subject.
It is completely off-topic. The topic is the moslems in the eastern empire. Let's drop the zealotry for a minute and focus.
But there were no muslims in the Roman Empire. Rome fell before islam emerged.
Presuming that there were Moslems in the Empire, what is known about them and their status? -
I dont mean to offend anyone but how on earth did we get from discussing muslims within the eastern empire to discussing the acts of crusaders and the Jewish people..?
I believe these were all responsa to items in posts. However, moslems and jews are certainly not off topic with the subject.
-
While on medicine, it is apparaent that rome was an advanced superpower, and would have been heavily engaged in preserving its asset and advancing it. Most of Rome's advancement was directed at advancing its power of might and greater success in holding on to that power, while this benefited the communites by default.
However, the introduction of medicine, as a science, was introduced in the OT. Here we find the first recording of a malignancy and contagious deseases (Leprosy), its ID and treatment, and also its seperation from the occult. Islam got it from the Hebrews via the pre-islamic arabs, babylonians (Iraq) and persians (Iran), and the Greeks were the first western peoples to translate the OT, passing this knowledge onto Rome, then Europe. Science itself comes from the OT, with the first recording of evolution in Genesis 1/1. The first scientific equation is:
'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'.
Modern history and thought began that way, with Europe being the world's great educaters and spreaders of knowledge.
-
Iamjoseph why would you say roman civilisation ended when the german people sacked rome the city?
Can't recall saying that. I am certain the German people suffered under Rome, and had legitimate grounds to revolt. The big issue here is, European christianity emulated Rome, instead of displaying the reverse: this gave religion a bad name, and is represented today by secularism and atheism, which becomes very understandable. Europe annuled the wrld's most majestic OT laws - unsuccessfully; not a single OT law is not active today.
Allow me to impress a mysterious consequence to Europe's deeds. When Spain's isabela massacred and expelled all jews, something occured which is not abosrbed by the world. Columbus got lost at sea, his mission funded by Jews' loans to isabela, and he got hopelessly lost - in a journey which he aught not to get lost in, having made the intended trip to India three times before. Also, he had the world's best jewish mapsters on board. But did he get lost? America was discovered - and perhaps a refuge was already in preparation here. It was a jew who penned the hymn, GOD BLESS AMERICA.
I see America as christianity's most potential savier - saving this great religion from Europe, enshrining the OT laws in its soul - The Constitution. America represents the reversal of its kin in medevial Europe, and today's conflicts are rested upon Arabia emersed in medevial European doctrines of theological racism. jews are today being accused of occupying their own homeland, and these charges are primarilly by those who stole this land from jews, then fastediously barred them from returning - for no other reasonings than theological doctrines, all of which can be proven false. But how does anyone even attempt or voice for the truth - when the adherents of both these religions being scripturally attached to them? Would these religions fall if the villification is removed - and is that not a most insecure position?
If theology be the operative factor, then both jesus and mohammed have rejected christianity and islam, and harkened to the God of Israel: Israel is returned, when it was most implausable for this to occur. Does it upset christians and muslims - why so - the term palestinian and West bank did not exist in 48?
-
Can't we all agree that Christans AND Muslims committed atrocities against each other and neither group deserves total blame or blamelessness?
Spittle, I agree!
Everyone did and does wrongs. The issue is not who did wrongs, but how those wrongs are corrected - else no one would need religions or laws. This is a major problem today, because those wrongs have been made into rights, else it seems two of the world's greatest religions will be fundamentally dented, by default. Both christianity and islam rest on the premise of villification of Jews, while both are mutually exclusive of each other's charges. The NT will take a dive if Jews are not deiciders, and islam will doctrinally not allow the slighting of a single verse in its scriptures - making the real battle looming of the two king kongs, which are mutually exclusive, and scheduled to begin immediately after the destruction of Israel: then no scapegoat will be available, and a face-off is encumbent with the two king kongs. What price front row seats?
-
Also remeber, although the Crusades were heavily influenced for politics there was still a certain desire to avenge the Christians who were brutally slaughtered to Muslim hand. That, you just can't deny.
Yes, islamic history accounts are selective and full of omissions. They fail to account for their invasions, massacres and occupation of Europe (spain), and of the land called palestine today. The crusader's primal target were the jews, with muslims being targeted because they errected a mosque on a church, which was first erected in the destruction of the Jewish temple: these were bad moves by these religions. The worst form of propaganda falls squarely on the vatican and european christianity here, which made no attempt to restore halpess, exiled jews from Europe back to their land, instead persetuing them for 2000 years and fastediously and obsessively barring their return. It become as if if jews existing as a nation with a homeland - it is an affront to the fulcrum pillars of two huge religions. Islam emulated this premise, exploiting the vatican. Both the king kongs are to blame, and the notion of religion itself became a negative premise with a dark history.
The real problem here is, the negative and false charges by the NT, has been embedded and alligned with belief in God - which makes truth very difficult to be impressed on otherwise sincere and Godly inclined christians and muslims. At least, it makes the premise for jews quite unsustainable. It is shocking that neither the NT nor the Quran highlights that Jews should not have been cast out of their land for following their belief, the same belief later fully adopted by them, and omit the great massacre which occured. Its very sus, IMHO, and is responsible for the quagmire in the world's conflicts today. One only has to pause and contemplate what kind of world it would be today - had the emrging European christianity over-turned the abuses of rome, and fostered the real teachings of morality and ethics, instead of placing all onus on deicide (sic), then going on to emulate and surpass all of brutal Rome's insanity of Caligula and Nero. If the vatican, which is perhaps the world's most powerful religious office, reversed the roman premise, and allowed the jews to return to their land - or at least fostered it - there would'nt be the M/E conflict today - and millions of innocent souls would not have perished.
-
Presuming that there were Moslems in the Empire, what is known about them and their status?
Meaning in the Eastern Empire (after the 7th Century)?
There was no Roman Empire when islam emerged. The pre-islamic Arabs are described in the Josephus documents when Rome and judea went to war, 70 CE. Here, the Arabs were paid mercenaries for Rome, and there are some derogatory passages made from the Roman General Titus.
Christian behavior in the Battle of Jerusalem, 1099, First Crusadehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29
"Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." According to Raymond of Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he could not prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. The Fatimid governor Iftikar ad-Daula withdrew to the Tower of David, which he soon surrendered to Raymond in return for safe passage for himself and bodyguards to Ascalon. [1]"
sounds like...Roman Catholism emulated Rome when Jerusalem's Temple was destroyed and over a million Jews massacred. It is said then the blood rose to the Roman horse's shoulders in the streets of Jerusalem. And it was done in the name of love?
Iudaea - novel and blog
in Colosseum
Posted
Little known is that the Latin name of Ludea [Judea] was changed to Israel during the Roman war in 70 CE. The Jews re-issued their coins with Israel replacing Judea. This says that today's Israel had the same name as at 2000 years ago. The name Palestine was applied by the Romans again, but this was on the Jewish sovereign homeland, rather than an Islamic or Arab one. Some 3000 years ago, the northern sector was also called Israel, making it one of the oldest historical names of a nation and also the most rejected.