Livius is a wonderful soource for ancient history............. Messianic claimants Although we cannot be certain whether a person in Antiquity was indeed called a Messiah (and by whom), the list of messianic claimants in modern literature seems endless. At the moment, it seems a common idea that ancient Judea and Galilee were crowded with Messiahs. It may have been so, but we simply cannot know. The main problem is that our most important source, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, felt a strong dislike for messianism and knew that the Romans shared this dislike. Consequently, he refused to use the title, except for Jesus of Nazareth. Modern scholars, however, suspect that several people mentioned by Josephus were in fact called Messiah, but it is of course tricky to try to know it better than the ancients. The following men, however, are likely candidates. 1. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE) 2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE) 3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE) 4. Judas, the Galilean (6 CE) 5. John the Baptist (c.28 CE) 6. Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE) 7. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE) 8. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE) 9. Theudas (45 CE) 10. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 CE) 11. An anonymous prophet (59 CE) 12. Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE) 13. John of Gischala (67-70 CE) 14. Vespasian (67 CE) 15. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE) 16. Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE) 17. Lukuas (115 CE) 18. Simon ben Kosiba (132-135) 19. Moses of Crete (44 http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html Of course there were additional claimants. Medieval claimants 1. Muhammad (570-c.632) 2. Abu Isa' al-Isfahani (c.700) 3. Moses al-Dar'i (c.1127) 4. David Alroy (c.1147) 5. A Yemenite Messiah (c.1172) 6. Abraham ben Samuel Abu'lafia (1230-1291) Later claimants 1. Asher Lämmlin (c.1500) 2. Isaac Luria (1534-1573) 3. Hayyim Vital (after 1542) 4. Sabbathai Zwi (1626-1676) 5. Jacob Frank (1726-1786) 6. Moses Guibbory (1899-1985) 7. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994)
I reviewed a few pages from the livius..org site and found that I could not find any information about the organization (livius.org). Subsequently I did a domain registry check and found that the organization was registered by the author of most of the articles listed on the site. Nothing more of import at that search. Still curious, I went back to the site and noted that ALL of the links found within the site, refer or redirect the searcher back to another page on livius.org. That would mean that the author is using his/her own writings to support his/her own writings. Interesting... Without corroborating evidence, then the writings are merely the opinions of the author.
Why? Your introduction was compelling enough to cause me to even consider your posting. "Livius is a wonderful soource for ancient history............." That intro does not in any way suggest that I would be required to validate the writings found on that site.
So, in other words, you through up a phoney intro for the purpose of causing others to have to do research on something(s) that your suggestion has inferred to be found on the suggested source you provide. When in fact, what you supplied was nothing more than an opinion of someone else that coincides with your own private opinion. Ultimately, you have only provided another opinion of that supports your opinion. Interesting.
NO.. I love Livius as a source and because I like to study.. if a subject interests me, I always look for additional sources. Do you have a problem of some sort? Encyclopedia of the Orient is also an excellent source.
Proof is the reason to look at other sources.. I find that Livius is very accurate... but once in a while there is newer archeological evidence. The website seems to catch up in a timely fashion.
"accurate"? You mean by accurate, that the opinions expressed by Livius coincides with the opinions of others and yourself? But what about PROOF? Where is the PROOF behind any of those opinions... either that of Livius or that of those with whom you relate the aspect of "accurate"? You relate to archaeological findings. Those findings immediately become the subject of scrutiny by the mind of those who are doing the analysis of those findings. That would involve subjective scrutiny. Hence the findings are the product of the 'subjective mind' and are therefore not proof of anything other than the fact that the publishers of those subjective findings are in agreement with one another regarding their opinions. Noting more.
So you have toured the ruins in Egypt, Balbeck, Byblos, Ancient Greece and the Greek Islands? How about in Arabia, Libya, Palestine, the Holy Lands??
Did I say that I have? No? Then why interject a straw man argument that has no relevance to the current discussion? But just to set the record straight, I have toured the ruins of South Korea and parts of Japan. Does that count toward having toured the ruins? Now suppose that I had toured those ruins that you mentioned. Would it have made any difference? I would have come back with my own OPINION and there we have the gist of this whole discussion. Comparing one opinion against that of another opinion. Where is the PROOF?
