Let's see about the Arch of Titus

[YoursTrue]

So let's see -- the Arch of Titus was built in Rome in the 1st century C.E. Without going into too much detail about it, although it is interesting and can be discussed, do you believe what it represented? Or was the whole thing fictional as some would say about the Bible and history of the Jews as well as others in the Bible. Speaking specifically of the veracity of the Arch of Titus.
Arch of Titus - Wikipedia

 

[Truthseeker]

Yes, it does show an actual event. However, you cannot project that onto the whole Bible and say none of it was fictional. That would be illogical for me.

 

[exchemist]

So let's see -- the Arch of Titus was built in Rome in the 1st century C.E. Without going into too much detail about it, although it is interesting and can be discussed, do you believe what it represented? Or was the whole thing fictional as some would say about the Bible and history of the Jews as well as others in the Bible. Speaking specifically of the veracity of the Arch of Titus.
Arch of Titus - Wikipedia

The Jewish rebellion , and its suppression by Vespasian, are historical events.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it does show an actual event. However, you cannot project that onto the whole Bible and say none of it was fictional. That would be illogical for me.

That is true. Although I do believe the Bible. More about this later, thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Jewish rebellion , and its suppression by Vespasian, are historical events.

At least there is the Arch of Titus as evidence. Otherwise, someone might claim it's all made up.

 

[exchemist]

At least there is the Arch of Titus as evidence. Otherwise, someone might claim it's all made up.

Plus there are documentary sources. After all, Vespasian was appointed emperor because of his success in crushing the rebellion.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Jewish rebellion , and its suppression by Vespasian, are historical events.

Yes, and of course, most people take this as actual, rather than fictitious. Which I do also. But I'd like to look a little further into this, if possible. Because before the conquest of Jerusalem, the Roman Empire stretched from Britain and Gaul, which is now France to Egypt. But the province of Judea had been a source of consternation for Rome.
The Encyclopedia of Ancient Rome states: “Few territories under Rome’s control were marked by such intense dislike, on both sides, as Judaea. The Jews resented foreign masters who cared nothing for their traditions, and the Romans found Jewish stubbornness cause for severe intolerance.” The Bible also bears this out about the resistance of the Jews to caving in to those who did not care for their traditions. Jesus is recorded to have said before the invasion of the Roman army, "The days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you.”—Luke 19:43, 44. (Part of Bible prophecy.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, I have heard 'dooms-day' sayers talk like this.

 

[ChristineM]

So let's see -- the Arch of Titus was built in Rome in the 1st century C.E. Without going into too much detail about it, although it is interesting and can be discussed, do you believe what it represented? Or was the whole thing fictional as some would say about the Bible and history of the Jews as well as others in the Bible. Speaking specifically of the veracity of the Arch of Titus.
Arch of Titus - Wikipedia

The arch of Titus is a monument dedicated to the emperor Titus deification, and the victory of Rome over the Jewish rebellion. No bible needed.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and of course, most people take this as actual, rather than fictitious. Which I do also. But I'd like to look a little further into this, if possible. Because before the conquest of Jerusalem, the Roman Empire stretched from Britain and Gaul, which is now France to Egypt. But the province of Judea had been a source of consternation for Rome.
The Encyclopedia of Ancient Rome states: “Few territories under Rome’s control were marked by such intense dislike, on both sides, as Judaea. The Jews resented foreign masters who cared nothing for their traditions, and the Romans found Jewish stubbornness cause for severe intolerance.” The Bible also bears this out about the resistance of the Jews to caving in to those who did not care for their traditions. Jesus is recorded to have said before the invasion of the Roman army, "The days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you.”—Luke 19:43, 44. (Part of Bible prophecy.)

The Jewish Rebellion was put down finally in 73-74 AD, before the probable date that St Luke's Gospel was written:

The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts.[5] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus.[6]

The author is not named in either volume.[8] According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."[9] An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31,[15] Acts 22:6–21,[16] and Acts 26:9–23)[17] with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).[18][19] The author of the Gospel of Luke clearly admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[20] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[21]

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[9] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[22] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[11]

From: Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia

What could be easier than for the author to put those words into the mouth of Jesus, to make it look like a prophecy?

 

[paarsurrey]

The arch of Titus is a monument dedicated to the emperor Titus deification, and the victory of Rome over the Jewish rebellion. No bible needed.

Friend @ChristineM ! Thread : "Let's see about the Arch of Titus"


Does one mean that Apotheosis, divinization or deification, was common those days in Rome to glorify, a human being who had accomplished something usual, to exalt him to the position of a god. Right?
Does it reflect in any way on the Hellenist-Pauline Christology , please? Right?

Regards
___________

The Arch of Titus, showing the "Spoils of Jerusalem" relief on the inside arch

South inner panel, close-up of relief showing spoils from the fall of Jerusalem

South inner panel, close-up of relief showing spoils from the fall of Jerusalem

 

[exchemist]

Does one mean that Apotheosis, divinization or deification, was common those days in Rome to glorify, a human being who had accomplished something usual, to exalt him to the position of a god. Right?
Does it reflect in any way on the Hellenist-Pauline Christology , please? Right?

Regards

No.

 

[ChristineM]

Does one mean that Apotheosis, divinization or deification, was common those days in Rome to glorify, a human being who had accomplished something usual, to exalt him to the position of a god. Right?
Does it reflect in any way on the Hellenist-Pauline Christology , please? Right?

Regards

It was common for roman emperor's to be deified. Just one of many things Rome considered treasonable about the new Christian religious belief in one god.

 

[paarsurrey]

It was common for roman emperor's to be deified. Just one of many things Rome considered treasonable about the new Christian religious belief in one god.

But Rome killed Jews only, please:

" The followers* of Jesus of Nazareth also survived the city's destruction. They spread his teachings across the Roman Empire, giving rise to the new religion of Christianity.[10] "
Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) - Wikipedia
Why, please?
Weren't they followers of Hellenist-Pauline-Christianity, and not of Yeshua exactly, please? Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one mean that Apotheosis, divinization or deification, was common those days in Rome to glorify, a human being who had accomplished something usual, to exalt him to the position of a god. Right?
Does it reflect in any way on the Hellenist-Pauline Christology , please? Right?

No.

And one's reason oriented arguments in this connection, instead of one's (blind) belief/faith please. Right?

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

The arch of Titus is a monument dedicated to the emperor Titus deification, and the victory of Rome over the Jewish rebellion. No bible needed.

So you believe the arch of Titus is historically correct about what happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

So the Arch verifies that there was a nation filled with Jews which Rome didn't like too well. And which they felt they had to subjugate.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was common for roman emperor's to be deified. Just one of many things Rome considered treasonable about the new Christian religious belief in one god.

A new Christian belief in one God? The Jews believed in one God before Rome came to be over the them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Plus there are documentary sources. After all, Vespasian was appointed emperor because of his success in crushing the rebellion.

So we can substantially say that the Romans crushed the Jewish rebellion in the first century. Right? Most people, I would assume, would say that is true. Both because of Jewish history, and because of Roman history.

 

[exchemist]

So we can substantially say that the Romans crushed the Jewish rebellion in the first century. Right? Most people, I would assume, would say that is true. Both because of Jewish history, and because of Roman history.

Yes. That’s because there is evidence of this from different sources that corroborate one another.