Noah's Ark. Fact or Fiction?

justin who?

Hold on now... please link to the LETTERS of Pontius Pilate (other than a religious website)

Their is only one artifact, that even makes a hint that their was a regional governor named Pilate

Image:Pilate-inscription 03.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thats it... No documents no other historical (non biblical) accounts only that Rock, and it was found in 1961

Justin Martyr. I was speaking of his two Apologies and his Dialogue with Trypho. These accounts are universally accepted. And are preserved only in the Sacra parallela; and besides that, they were known by Tatian, Methodius, and Eusebius. Their influence is traceable in Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, the Pseudo-Melito, and especially Tertullian.
Justin Quotes from the Roman record of the Acts of Pontius Pilate. These letters were lost to history, yet his quoting form them, is accepted as a true quote from Pontius Pilate himself.

Justin Martyr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ummm....Justin isn't a historian.

Justin may not be thought of as a historian, yet his writings are considered historically accurate by other historians.

the point is well mae that it was 3 and 4 th accounts... Play a game a telephone, over a few people and even a simple phrase is changed

Justin was a christian theologian who was born in 100 AD, not only did he not write first hand account but more likely 2nd and 3rd hand accounts, but he is hardly what you can consider unbiased on the subject metter!

No one ever said he was writing a first hand account, he was quoting from the Acts of Pontius Pilate, which was still in existance. Justin presented this first "Apology" to Emperor Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161) and the senate of Rome, about the year 140 A.D. having mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and some of its attendant circumstances, adds, "And these things were done, you may know from the 'Acts' made in the time of Pontius Pilate."

Justin was telling the Emperor and the Roman Senate that if they question the prophecies of the Bible about Christ healing all diseases and that he raised the dead all you have to to is read the personal accounts of Pontius Pilate. He would not say this unless it were true. In the end, they killed him anyway.

as much as you want to take stories about the living dead as history, it's not. If he was writting about history then he would've been a historian but he isn't, he was a theologian, he writes about theology not history.

I take all historical accounts over 60 years old with a grain of salt. It is even believed that the romance of Abe Lincolon and Ann Rutledge is largely legend. However, it is a great story. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author

Yes, yet historians quote from his writings and see no problem doing so

and that is one of the reasons we know that the Acts of Pontius Pilot even existed.

Much of the historical accounts we have today often does not come from historians, but people from the time period sending personal letters or other avenues of writings.

The one's who might resist his quotes of course are those who oppose how they mirror the Gospels.

The Bible is also written from a spiritual slant, yet that does not make it's historical accounts any less valid.

So, do you believe that there was an American Civil War? Or how about Americas fight for independence? Do you take all of that with a grain of salt?

we also quote plato and his stories of Atlantis as well...



CORRECTION: that is one of the reasons we think that the Acts of Pontius Pilot even existed.



two problems

1. Justin wasn't writting from personal experience

2. those non-historian accounts are only accepted if they have corroberating evidence, to which there is none for justin.



they do match the gosphels, but that doesn't make them historical fact.



it does if there is no corroberating evidence.

he would if there was only one account of it.

Well the other day I read an article in one newspaper and then saw an article on the same topic in another paper. Yet I did not automatically assume that the one paper had to borrow the story from the other paper. Two different papers speaking of the same event from a different perspective is entirely possible. I think what bothers me is how some just ASSUME the story had to be borrowed.

Well, the Bible has a number of eyewitiness accounts written by various authors, and all these accounts have been assembled in One Book. So it appears the number of accounts is not the problem. I suppose if we could put all the accounts of the Civil War in one book, I wonder if he would refuse to believe that happend?