IamJoseph

Little known is that the Latin name of Ludea [Judea] was changed to Israel during the Roman war in 70 CE. The Jews re-issued their coins with Israel replacing Judea. This says that today's Israel had the same name as at 2000 years ago. The name Palestine was applied by the Romans again, but this was on the Jewish sovereign homeland, rather than an Islamic or Arab one. Some 3000 years ago, the northern sector was also called Israel, making it one of the oldest historical names of a nation and also the most rejected.

When Rome conquered a nation, it erected manuments with its ensigns of Jupiter in the most central places. This find represents the early period of conquest of a host of states like Syria, Egypt, Moab, Judea, Babylonia, etc and marks the period of Rome's take over of all that was the Greek empire. The 150 BC date was the end of the war of Carthage.

The price of all old coins will take a dive after such a large find. However, it is a good history affirming discovery.

No, of course it does not connect with Britain, but it can be seen applicable to coins of the Roman era. I thought it may be interesting to coin hobbyists who may throw some light on this item.

A find of a coin marked as 'Shekel [coin] of Israel' would be of the greatest interest as well as confirming the Josephus reports. Josephus says that the coins marked as 'Shekel of Judea' was changed to 'Shekel of Israel' - during the period of Rome's wars with the Jews, because the Jews wanted the Latin name of Judea [Ludea] removed from their country. Interestingly, this also says that before the name of Palestine was applied to Judea by Rome - this land was called Israel some 2000 years ago. Finding such a coin would be a big lottery sized winfall.

St Paul was sent to Rome because he requested a Roman trial, as opposed being tried in Jerusalem. There is no evidence here of a trial, which says Rome did not indulge in such trials. It is possible that those considered heretics [Nero resurrected Caligula's Heresy decree] - were not afforded any forebearence. This is post Jesus' period by some 20 years and the heresy factor was not officially implemented, though a strong anti-Jewish doctrine prevailed. If Paul was executed - it seems implausable that Jesus would have been given a trial as recorded in the Gospels, and there is no historical proof of such a trial. It seems like both Paul and Jesus would have been killed simply for being Jewish and spreading the teachings of the Hebrew religion.

Romans are pre-christian; Byzantine Turkey = when turkey was in the Byzantine reign. There's no proof yet, but loads of evidence - more so than for Jesus or mohammed. King david was declared a myth by scholars, but this has been reversed by the Tel Dan find of a 3000 year House of David monument. Nothing in the OT has ever been disproved, rendering it the most vindicated historical document in existence.

They've always had. Yes, and he had contact with Jews also and had distant cousins who were Jews and Christians. His tribe believed in the Moon God Allah. He decided to create his own religion taking second hand facts from Jews and Christians and creating his own religion. I cannot see how Islam can report about the past, such as Abraham and Moses, which events occured 2000 years earlier. There was no arabic writings till 350-450 CE, meaning it was quite implausable to have any correct recall of dates, family names and events of that time - save for taking this information from someone or somewhere else, who had historical knowledge by virtue of a written script. The response to such a question is generally vested in belief, namely that this information was derived via revelation and enlightenment, while the Quran remains in contradiction of both Judaism and christianity's scriptures and their versions of revelation and enlightenment. The issue here is, that a 'belief' is countered against historical facts, which is unacceptable from the premise an on the ground fact must transcend a belief, else truth and veracity has no meaning. A belief can only be a counter to another belief, not against historical fact, and also in contradiction of precedent ones from all sectors. IOW, it is unacceptable that one can call a spade as a flower, based on belief. Yes, three religions evolved from here, and the osmosis of the roman empire into christianity represents one of those beliefs. Islam is represented by the religion which arose from the Arabs. Christianity did not emerge in a vacuum of itself, but an amalgamation of Judaic and European (Roman & Greek) influences.

This means when Islam emerged, they would have interaction with both the Romans - in descent, and a fairly established sector of christianity - in ascent. The latter would have been in a process of absorbing the former, while also confronting an emerging opposition with Islam, which rejected christianity and was in its own ascent stage. At this time, there were three religions from one, all being mutually exclusive of each other's fulcrum doctrines, an obvious recipe for disaster looming. A retrospectic look at this impossible scenario clarifies what occured, and how this scenario effects the world today. Obviously, all three cannot be right in their doctrines or reportings of history. It seems that Islam's scriptures and doctrines were a response more to christian scriptures, because its names are Latin-based more than the Judaic, eg: Ibrahim, with a 'B' alligns when Abraham, not with the V in the Hebrew Avraham. Also, Judaism was in its worst descent here. The inclusion of Jesus in Islamic scripture also alligns with the christian writings than with the Roman Empire. This says, IMHO, there was an immense interaction between early Islam and Christianity, and that Islam being Middle-eastern, did not accept christian scripture's core beliefs, while it did so of Judaism, possibly because there was the notion Israel was past history. However, both christianity and Islam's variances regarding the OT cannot be both correct - they contradict each other. This says that the interaction of Islam with Christianity emerged before Constantinople and Byzantine Turkey, and that all of the conflicts in this region stem from the disputes between christianity and islam - Judaism being a non-entity for many centuries, and relevent only recently, around '48.

I never mentioned Rome or any Capital city, only that there was no interaction with Islam by Roman empire, but this has been qualified to include christianity. No, nor did I say so. But if your talking muslims and christian interaction, one of the first points would be Mecca.

As was mentioned earlier, the entity named as the 'Roman empire' does not necessarily end with the fall of Rome in the 5th century, but extends to include the Byzantine/Roman Empire. In that light, there were indeed muslims in the (eastern) Roman empire. Ok, so it refers to Roman Christianity, which would have impacted with islam a couple of centuries later. More interesting, is the impact of christianity not in Byrantine, but in Mecca: there is a report there was a Missionary who had close contacts with Mohammed. Anyone hear of this?

I believe these were all responsa to items in posts. However, moslems and jews are certainly not off topic with the subject. It is completely off-topic. The topic is the moslems in the eastern empire. Let's drop the zealotry for a minute and focus. But there were no muslims in the Roman Empire. Rome fell before islam emerged.

I believe these were all responsa to items in posts. However, moslems and jews are certainly not off topic with the subject.

While on medicine, it is apparaent that rome was an advanced superpower, and would have been heavily engaged in preserving its asset and advancing it. Most of Rome's advancement was directed at advancing its power of might and greater success in holding on to that power, while this benefited the communites by default. However, the introduction of medicine, as a science, was introduced in the OT. Here we find the first recording of a malignancy and contagious deseases (Leprosy), its ID and treatment, and also its seperation from the occult. Islam got it from the Hebrews via the pre-islamic arabs, babylonians (Iraq) and persians (Iran), and the Greeks were the first western peoples to translate the OT, passing this knowledge onto Rome, then Europe. Science itself comes from the OT, with the first recording of evolution in Genesis 1/1. The first scientific equation is: 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'. Modern history and thought began that way, with Europe being the world's great educaters and spreaders of knowledge.

Can't recall saying that. I am certain the German people suffered under Rome, and had legitimate grounds to revolt. The big issue here is, European christianity emulated Rome, instead of displaying the reverse: this gave religion a bad name, and is represented today by secularism and atheism, which becomes very understandable. Europe annuled the wrld's most majestic OT laws - unsuccessfully; not a single OT law is not active today. Allow me to impress a mysterious consequence to Europe's deeds. When Spain's isabela massacred and expelled all jews, something occured which is not abosrbed by the world. Columbus got lost at sea, his mission funded by Jews' loans to isabela, and he got hopelessly lost - in a journey which he aught not to get lost in, having made the intended trip to India three times before. Also, he had the world's best jewish mapsters on board. But did he get lost? America was discovered - and perhaps a refuge was already in preparation here. It was a jew who penned the hymn, GOD BLESS AMERICA. I see America as christianity's most potential savier - saving this great religion from Europe, enshrining the OT laws in its soul - The Constitution. America represents the reversal of its kin in medevial Europe, and today's conflicts are rested upon Arabia emersed in medevial European doctrines of theological racism. jews are today being accused of occupying their own homeland, and these charges are primarilly by those who stole this land from jews, then fastediously barred them from returning - for no other reasonings than theological doctrines, all of which can be proven false. But how does anyone even attempt or voice for the truth - when the adherents of both these religions being scripturally attached to them? Would these religions fall if the villification is removed - and is that not a most insecure position? If theology be the operative factor, then both jesus and mohammed have rejected christianity and islam, and harkened to the God of Israel: Israel is returned, when it was most implausable for this to occur. Does it upset christians and muslims - why so - the term palestinian and West bank did not exist in 48?