Posted on 08/19/2017 6:55:17 AM PDT by Twotone
In Matthew 11, Jesus expresses his frustration with the people in his native region who, despite witnessing his mighty works, refused to repent and believe the Gospel.
He singled out the residents of Bethsaida, the home town of Peter, Andrew and Philip. “Woe to you, Bethsaida!” he declared. “For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.”
Other mentions of Bethsaida in the Gospels refer to those mighty works: Jesus healing a blind man in Mark 8 and, in Luke 9, feeding the 5,000.
As I never get tired of saying, Christianity is a historical faith. It tells the story of God’s actions in human history, not some mythical “once upon a time.” Thus, as I also never get tired of telling you, it shouldn’t surprise anyone when archaeologists discover evidence that confirms this fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at stream.org ...
They may also have found the site of the Temple. Some are saying that the temple was never at the site of the dome of the rock but was in the city of David and the site of the dome of the Rock is the old roman fort.
They found the site of A temple in the old city of David right over the Gihon springs-where the Temple would have to have been.
But dont let tell some on here that. You will get called every name they can think of.
How do historians uncover place and relationships of Biblical figures such as Peter, Andrew, & Phillip??
There are only scant writtings.
Any links to the Temple info? Just asking.
Great book! “Temple” by Jerome Corsi. Available on Amazon.
There are several other sources out there.
Really messed up! The writer is Robert Cornuke. Sorry, senior moment.
Have you ever seen any of the ‘Drive Thru History’ shows? There’s one on the Revolutionary War & another series on the early Christian church. It’s been playing on the Blaze this summer. One of the interesting tidbits is that where there have been different scrolls found of the same writing, they have been consistent. So people were copying them faithfully & not allowing for ‘changing our history’. Which is why the Bible can be considered as an accurate historical account of much that transpired in that time period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTSCQgZirts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oBWNp6Rq9s
There a quite a lot of others and some are supported by Jewish scholars. You come to your own conclusions, but I find it all quite interesting since these all tend to follow the writings of the bible as well as eye witnesses.
NOT ONE, of the scoffers can explain why the eye witnesses wrote the historical facts the way they did.
I first thought. OH NO, here we go again. another bunch claiming this and that. Yet when I checked the references, they have valid points.
The excavations on finding “A” temple I have to search for again.
I guess that Cornuke basically followed the writings of another guy that wrote about that way before Cornuke got into this sort of thing.
I was called a Monkey Boy by a Jewish dude that I posted this points to a few weeks ago.
In some cases it’s the writings of early church fathers and local tradition in the region. Some sites were memorialized very early on and continued to be for centuries.
That’s because the scribes employed sophisticated error checking methods that are used even today. Hebrew and Greek letters can also be used as numbers. A line of text has a known number of letters, and those numbers added together have a known sum. Any deviation means there is an error. Only transposed letters would get through.
Some of the biblical books have repeating letters that aren’t obvious in translation. Some employ chiasmus. It was easier to error check than most people realize. Books and scrolls were very rare and valuable and they weren’t done in a hurry.
http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/wars-jews/b5c5.html
According to Joesephus, there was a whole Roman legion encamped. A whole Roman legion is about 6000 men plus supporting persons-or about 10,000. A whole Roman legion in no way could be housed in a place that, according to some, was about 6 acres in area. IMPOSSIBLE.
Quite interesting.
If there were any people who could organize their military logistics to support troops in an area where it would hard to do so. It would be the Romans!
Ya, they got inside and then it was over. I mean they got the troups within the city walls right in with the area of the Temple and that was it.
Not that it would have mattered to the Romans where they would have started from.
But the point is that they housed a legion there. And a legion would have required a hell of a lot more space than modern “scholars” have concluded.
I tend to agree, the present Temple mount was the site of the fort. There was a portico from that fort, south to the Temple area. At least that is what a whole lot are now claiming and they have a point.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks Twotone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
