drippin' rock
Senior Member
My guess on why these other works are not contested more is that most of them were writing observations of life and philosophy, or writing fiction, while the Bible and it's supporters claim it's fact.
Welcome Guest!
A graphic on the reliability of the New Testament....
- Thread starter jmharris23
- Start date
JB0704
I Gots Goats
Herodotus was claiming fact with much of his stuff too. We teach his claims to history students.
drippin' rock
Senior Member
Did he claim to know the secret of eternal life? Or was he just recording history as he knew it? I ask because I do not know much about him.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
Nah, just history. He mixed a little fantasy in with it. We take him at his word, though.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Only the claims, that through research, have been found to be historically accurate.
drippin' rock
Senior Member
Yeah, I imagine most of the stuff of that time had fantasy woven in. I do think the Bible polarizes people because it claims to be the only way to heaven, or after-life. Folks might feel threatened by that, and tend to argue the point. I don't know anyone that feels threatened by an account of Persian politics or Homer's Iliad. Bored to tears maybe, but not threatened.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
JB0704
I Gots Goats
They didn't find the arrowheads and spear heads till recently. The only evidence for many years wasa small monument, and Herodotus. But, we believed him.
This is my fault....going down this path again.....
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Please do more research.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
Aw heck, man. I'm just shooting from the hip things I remember from the History channel.
I'm open to correction, when did they discover the arrowheads and spearheads? What other evidence existed? You brought up another historian once who actually wrote about it 500 years later.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Taken from various sources that I quickly found....
The main source for the Greco-Persian Wars is the Greek historian Herodotus. Herodotus, who has been called the 'Father of History', was born in 484 BC in Halicarnassus, Asia Minor (then under Persian overlordship). He wrote his 'Enquiries' (Greek—Historia; English—(The) Histories) around 440–420 BC, trying to trace the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars, which would still have been relatively recent history (the wars finally ending in 450 BC). Herodotus's approach was entirely novel, and at least in Western society, he does seem to have invented 'history' as we know it. As Holland has it: "For the first time, a chronicler set himself to trace the origins of a conflict not to a past so remote so as to be utterly fabulous, nor to the whims and wishes of some god, nor to a people's claim to manifest destiny, but rather explanations he could verify personally."
"Some subsequent ancient historians, despite following in his footsteps, criticised Herodotus, starting with Thucydides. Nevertheless, Thucydides chose to begin his history where Herodotus left off (at the Siege of Sestos), and therefore evidently felt that Herodotus's history was accurate enough not to need re-writing or correcting. Plutarch criticised Herodotus in his essay "On The Malignity of Herodotus", describing Herodotus as "Philobarbaros" (barbarian-lover), for not being pro-Greek enough, which suggests that Herodotus might actually have done a reasonable job of being even-handed. A negative view of Herodotus was passed on to Renaissance Europe, though he remained well read. However, since the 19th century his reputation has been dramatically rehabilitated by archaeological finds which have repeatedly confirmed his version of events. The prevailing modern view is that Herodotus generally did a remarkable job in his Historia, but that some of his specific details (particularly troop numbers and dates) should be viewed with skepticism. "
"The Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century BC in his Bibliotheca Historica, also provides an account of the Greco-Persian wars, partially derived from the earlier Greek historian Ephorus. This account is fairly consistent with Herodotus's. The Greco-Persian wars are also described in less detail by a number of other ancient historians including Plutarch, Ctesias of Cnidus, and are referred to by other authors, such as the playwright Aeschylus. Archaeological evidence, such as the Serpent Column, also supports some of Herodotus's specific claims."
"When the body of Leonidas was recovered by the Persians, Xerxes, in a rage against Leonidas, ordered that the head be cut off and the body crucified. Herodotus observes that this was very uncommon for the Persians, as they had the habit of treating "valiant warriors" with great honor (the example of Pytheas, captured off Skiathos before the Battle of Artemisium strengthens this suggestion). However, Xerxes was known for his rage, for instance, when he had the Hellespont whipped because it would not obey him. After the Persians' departure, the Allies collected their dead and buried them on the hill. After the Persian invasion ended, a stone lion was erected at Thermopylae to commemorate Leonidas. A full forty years after the battle, Leonidas' bones were returned to Sparta where he was buried again with full honors; funeral games were held every year in his memory."
The main source for the Greco-Persian Wars is the Greek historian Herodotus. Herodotus, who has been called the 'Father of History', was born in 484 BC in Halicarnassus, Asia Minor (then under Persian overlordship). He wrote his 'Enquiries' (Greek—Historia; English—(The) Histories) around 440–420 BC, trying to trace the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars, which would still have been relatively recent history (the wars finally ending in 450 BC). Herodotus's approach was entirely novel, and at least in Western society, he does seem to have invented 'history' as we know it. As Holland has it: "For the first time, a chronicler set himself to trace the origins of a conflict not to a past so remote so as to be utterly fabulous, nor to the whims and wishes of some god, nor to a people's claim to manifest destiny, but rather explanations he could verify personally."
"Some subsequent ancient historians, despite following in his footsteps, criticised Herodotus, starting with Thucydides. Nevertheless, Thucydides chose to begin his history where Herodotus left off (at the Siege of Sestos), and therefore evidently felt that Herodotus's history was accurate enough not to need re-writing or correcting. Plutarch criticised Herodotus in his essay "On The Malignity of Herodotus", describing Herodotus as "Philobarbaros" (barbarian-lover), for not being pro-Greek enough, which suggests that Herodotus might actually have done a reasonable job of being even-handed. A negative view of Herodotus was passed on to Renaissance Europe, though he remained well read. However, since the 19th century his reputation has been dramatically rehabilitated by archaeological finds which have repeatedly confirmed his version of events. The prevailing modern view is that Herodotus generally did a remarkable job in his Historia, but that some of his specific details (particularly troop numbers and dates) should be viewed with skepticism. "
"The Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century BC in his Bibliotheca Historica, also provides an account of the Greco-Persian wars, partially derived from the earlier Greek historian Ephorus. This account is fairly consistent with Herodotus's. The Greco-Persian wars are also described in less detail by a number of other ancient historians including Plutarch, Ctesias of Cnidus, and are referred to by other authors, such as the playwright Aeschylus. Archaeological evidence, such as the Serpent Column, also supports some of Herodotus's specific claims."
"When the body of Leonidas was recovered by the Persians, Xerxes, in a rage against Leonidas, ordered that the head be cut off and the body crucified. Herodotus observes that this was very uncommon for the Persians, as they had the habit of treating "valiant warriors" with great honor (the example of Pytheas, captured off Skiathos before the Battle of Artemisium strengthens this suggestion). However, Xerxes was known for his rage, for instance, when he had the Hellespont whipped because it would not obey him. After the Persians' departure, the Allies collected their dead and buried them on the hill. After the Persian invasion ended, a stone lion was erected at Thermopylae to commemorate Leonidas. A full forty years after the battle, Leonidas' bones were returned to Sparta where he was buried again with full honors; funeral games were held every year in his memory."
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
When did they LOOK for the arrowheads and spearheads? Was it really necessary to go there the day after and look for such things? They collected their dead after the battle so in my opinion, they were pretty sure the battle took place. They did not need arrowheads and spearheads to confirm what they already knew from first person eyewitness accounts that were actually involved in the events. And they had them from both sides of the battle.
When someone finally decided to find some archaeological evidence by uncovering spears and arrowheads(because the bodies were gotten after the battle) they actually found them....which only confirms what has been said and written! I am not sure why bringing up that they found those weapons many years later is a bad thing.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
Bullet, what did you write that contradicts anything I said?
Diodorus was from the 1st century B.C. Some 400 years after the war.
The serpent column is the small monument I mentioned.
Diodorus was from the 1st century B.C. Some 400 years after the war.
The serpent column is the small monument I mentioned.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
My point was that Herodotus was believed, in a general sense, before the evidence was discovered.
I am sure you are aware of monuments, churches, etc. from the early centuries based on Chritian history. This is evidence that a man existed who started a movement. Then, we have the text. And Josephus. But still, on this board, there are those who think it is all a fantasy, the man never existed.
It's not good or bad that the evidence was found later. The point is that nobody doubted that the battle ever happened.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Monuments and Churches in EVERY religion were built. They are all based of beliefs more than evidence. From the Myans to Hindus, Buddhists to Catholics, Native Americans to Aborigines and every religion you can think of and a thousand more you can't.......those things were built and worshiped. If that is the evidence you nedd then you should believe 1000% in the Greek and Roman Gods. You should believe in Buddha.
What they all lack that historical fact does not is EVIDENCE.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
Not the direction I am going. I have no doubt that those who founded the various religions existed. I am not a muslim, but I do not doubt that Mohammed existed.
My point was not the divinity of the man, but the historcal fact of his existence.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
When I shoot a turkey the dead bird and fine meal afterwards suffices the critics. I do not have to immediately dig through the dirt at the kill site to prove I shot the bird. NOW!!!!! If the Game Commission doubts me, I can certainly take them to the spot of the kill and let them go crazy with their metal detector and look for 400-500 little tungsten pellets. Each account will back up the other.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Where is the historical fact that you are talking about? Your not going in that direction because it takes what you are saying and nullifies it.
Zeus, Poseidon, Mars, Apollo, Hades, all have the criteria for you to believe.
JB0704
I Gots Goats
Did you read my last post? I cannot prove to you that God exists. That requires faith. But, I think in your (general sense) zeal to disprove the Bible, you overlook the basic fact that the Bible, from a historical perspective, has just as much veracity as many other historical claims.
Greek gods, the temples indicate the people at the time believed in them. Jesus was actual person whose life and actions were recorded. Does that prove he is God's son, no. Does it add validity to his existence, absolutely!
JB0704
I Gots Goats
I said it in the post. Jesus' existence as a person. You can decide on your own about the divinity. That's between you and God, and really not my business.
Nowhere on this forum have I ever tried to prove Jesus' divinity. I find it to be an exercise in futility, and probably designed that way if faith is the objective. I'm not going that direction because it is a huge waste of all our time. I would rather pick a fight with the Christians about gay folks.
Were they people? Did their contemporaries record conversations? Did those who worshipped them recognize that they were people?
Similar threads
