Archaeologica.org

Despite the predictable weak and superficial rebuttal by the wiki mentality, Las Lunas is solid evidence of Phoenician presence in the American Southwest. One decent account :
http://www.truthontheweb.org/comstone.htm

Their fate has always been known by "cranks." Now it's inarguable :
http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/g ... nsing.html

So it would seem that we Yids have a prior claim to the New World then Uni!

Roy.

Hardly.

First come first served, if it's Hebrew they were Jews. Move over!

Roy.

uniface wrote:Las Lunas is solid evidence of Phoenician presence in the American Southwest.

And a strong support for the hypothesis that they, the Phoenicians (and their successors the Carthaginians), maintained regular global trade in their day! Over 2 millennia before Columbus, Leif Erickson, and the Irish monks!

I am not so sure about that Digit.

If you do a search on Las Lunas one of the first thing that comes up a U of O report.

They say the inscription is Samaritan vs. Jewish.
That interpretation comes from the inscription being over the door rather than beside it and some wording differences.

But this site has been one of my favorite examples of “If we ignore it, it will go away.”
I have a folder dedicated to it.

I never thought about a connection with Sacred Ridge.
But that would be a interesting idea.
It is pretty clear that the irrigation systems through out the area were well engineered but went into a fast decline.
One of my favorite theories is a “slave revolt” that wiped out the ruling and supervisor class and left no technological expertise to maintain the systems.
Without that maintaince the system silted up and died.

But that is not politically acceptable.

BTW,
The 10 Commandants are not the only inscriptions on the site.
All around the mesa there are a number of different kinds of rock art that span quite a period of time.

Samaritans are Jews kb.
The difference is as Catholic vs Protestant or Sunni vs Shia.

Roy.

This is probaly old hat to you folks but it is a new one for me . LOL , looks like a pantomime elephant with a few holes and an ear missing .

George

Jews who lived in Galilee generally took the long way around to Jerusalem, rather than go through Samaria.

To avoid being beaten up (or worse).

Same applies to the manner in which Sunni and Shia are still slugging it out and the manner in which Catholics slaughtered Protestants and vice versa and still do in Northern Ireland.
The Muslims worship Allah, the Samaritans and Jews worship Jehova and the Catholics and Protestants worship God.
Iraq is divided along religous lines and so is Northern Ireland and nare the twain meet.

Roy.

The first recorded mention of the stone is in 1933, when professor Frank Hibben, an archaeologist from the University of New Mexico, saw it. Hibben was led to the stone by an unnamed guide who claimed to have found it as a boy in the 1880s. The 1880s date of discovery is important to those who believe that the stone was inscribed by a lost tribe of Israel. The Paleo-Hebrew script is practically identical to the Phoenician script, which was known at the time, thus not precluding the possibility of fraud

From Wiki

Gee...who in the 1880's might have had an interest in producing a fraudulent link to the OT?

Can anyone say "Mormons?"

I've seen a better (more highly detailed) site on the Las Lunas inscription, but didn't feel like scrounging around on google for it. You can if it's of interest.

Bottom line is that nobody anywhere in the 1880s could have known enough about the actual (vs. textbook) syntax and orthography of the Phoenecians to have faked it. That knowledge came only through inscriptions found in the course of excavations carried out many decades later.

Samaritans are Jews

To the same extent that horses are donkeys.

Samarians were a remnant of Israel, still residing in their ancestral locales. This is why Christ ministered to them (in John 4. NBB : "Are you greater than our father Abraham who gave us the well ?) (Ignore the clumsy interpolation of salvation being of the Judaeans. They had none of it to give anyone, and were in dire need of it themselves).

The Jews, in contrast were half-breeds at best. Ezra 9:1-2 -- The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the natives of the country, doing their abominations . . . For they have taken their daughters for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed have mixed themselves with the natives of those lands ; worse, the princes and rulers have been the worst offenders in this.

And at worst, they were Edomites, converted at swordpoint by Hyrcanus around 100 BC (Josephus Antiquities). Hence the Pharisaic boast (John 8:33) that Abraham was their father and they had never been in captivity (which rules out descent from Isaac categorically, leaving Esau).

If it needs further elucidation, addressing them directly, Christ told them in John 11:26 But you don't believe me because you are not my sheep, as I've told you.

He was sent, by his own admission, only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not to the goats, pigs, dogs and other creatures around them in the barnyard.

And no amount of common sense will change you Bible centric views anyway, but on the off chance, what is the sacred book of the Samaritans? It's the TORAH!
What was Jesus doing in the Temple if he wasn't Jewish? Why is he addressed as Rabbi? Why was he killed as 'king of the Jews?'
Matthew 15-22.
Jesus claimed to be the fullfillment of JEWISH law Uni, would he have been a gentile? Wake up and open your eyes. Matthew 5 17-18.

Roy.

And no amount of common sense will change you Bible centric views

Seeing as it's the natural point of departure into the rest of the literature related to it, and that there is no "secular" history worth mentioning that bears on the events at issue, what other "-centric" perspective is there ?

what is the sacred book of the Samaritans? It's the TORAH!

The Samarian Torah -- differing from the Pharasaic redaction in about 6,000 details. Most importantly, in the location of the Temple mountain (see following).

What was Jesus doing in the Temple if he wasn't Jewish?

The Samarians had a temple as well, at it is a much more likely location than the one in Jerusalem. The Samarians were as intransigent in morality as today's Taliban are, making a charge of adultery (against a woman who was undoubtedly his wife -- otherwise he would not be exercising judgement of her) a serious matter. In Jerusalem, with the Talmud as my reference, a charge of marital infidelity would have been a matter of ribald humor, quickly dismissed).

Why was he killed as 'king of the Jews?' Matthew 15-22.

Probably for the same reason that 9/11 is blamed on Bin Laden.

Jesus claimed to be the fullfillment of JEWISH law

Not so, Dig. The fulfillment of THE law, yes. But its adoption by the Judaeans (thank you very little once again, Hyrcanus), forced to do so or be exiled and have their property confiscated, does not make it THEIR law, any more than a hermit crab setting up residence in a conch shell makes it a conch. Christ habitually called them hupokrates -- a term translated-away as "hypocrites" but meaning, at root, Impersonators (as an actor impersonates his character in a drama. With his success depending, as Aristotle long-ago pointed out, on "the willing suspension of disbelief" by the audience). Just as in the case of the US patent medicine commercial that starts with "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."