• Hello everyone, we will rebooting the web server on Sunday February 17th 2019 at 1800 (6pm) GMT / 1300 (1pm) EST to apply some server updates.

    We will also be applying some updates to the forums software.

    This will result in approximately 30 minutes of downtime

The Bible: Fact Or Fiction?

Is the Bible Fact or Fiction?

  • Fact

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Fiction

    Votes: 8 25.8%
  • A Mixture of Factual & Fictional

    Votes: 21 67.7%
  • I Don't Know / No Firm Opinion

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31
  • This poll will close: .

Ermintruder

Existential pixelfixer
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
4,843
Likes
5,744
Points
209
Are you simply asking Victory about the degree of belief he'd invest in oral tradition alone?
I'm attempting to gauge the extent to which the existence of a (large) revered document in itself a pre-requisite for religions in general.

I get the impression that in the modern day a significant quantity of people (not all) of deitific faith also have faith in the veracity of their holy books without necessarily being intimately-familiar with their contents.

I am intrigued regarding the extent to which the challenging encyclopedic nature of holy books has an influence upon belief systems. If the Old & New Testaments had only ever been The Ten Commandments and a four-page pamphlet, would the absence of a massive document have had an impact upon the growth of Christianity?

This is by way of a thought experiment- hence the outer-points of extremity, ranging from a "no written bible" versus a uber-magnum opus bible of Old+New Testaments plus other gospels eg Gnostic.


...in terms of a different Judaic faith rather than a different faith altogether?
No, I was making this point in respect of, for example, good-old secular lady luck. I genuinely do not know if people who are conventionally-religious are generally more-likely to trust in providence generally (I mean in parallel with their own religious beliefs).
 
Last edited:

Victory

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
125
Likes
167
Points
44
Location
London
@Victory I've a few key questions for you (this is NOT a nasty ad hom attack from me, just genuine curiousity):

  • suppose there had never been a written Old or New Testament, but just an oral tradition passed-down through the ages, of a modified Judaeic tradition called 'Christianity'. Would your faith be stronger or weaker as a consequence?
  • is Christianity your only faith? By which I mean the expectation of providence despite the infinitely-high probability of disappointment. An important underpinning aspect of faith (I mean all beliefs) appears to be the stoical acceptance of non-delivery, compensated by hope
  • what is your response to the inarguably-valid point (made, most-convincingly by Hitchens) that Christianity can be toxic (or at least dangerous) in its biblical message of passivity, "the Lord shall provide" and similar non-assertiveness. Can you see any advantages for an occupying power in this philosophy being uptaken by a previously-aggressive local population? (cf the main precept of Caeser's Messiah and the Flavian dynasty). My rhetorical question is self-answering. Imperial Rome had always absorbed and adapted local religions- why would Christianity/Judeo-Flavian monotheism be any different?
  • As someone of faith underpinned by the Bible, what is your personal perspective on other religions? All of which know, with absolute certainty, that they are uniquely-right, and all others are entirely-wrong. Can't you see an unavoidable corollary emerging from this?
Firstly I note EnolaGai's advisory comments, and thank Enola for them.

Secondly, Analogue Boy, this is a Fortean Forum.
Now you have your beliefs and I have mine, and you clearly do not share mine on this subject.
But "Earth Mysteries" are very much part of the Fortean fold, regardless of where you stand, and to discuss them fits with this forum.
So your flippancy just reads as rude and arrogant.

Ermintruder

1.) I am Jewish. So the New Testament is not what I believe in the way you believe it, though Jews do believe JC existed.

2.) I am Jewish, and it is my only faith.

3.) I cannot comment on other religions with such certainty. I can say that whilst Jews believe G-D loves us and wants what is best for us, it is incumbent upon people to "put one foot forward" to receive divine assistance. You cannot just sit in your house and think food and clothing will arrive without you lifting a finger, basically go and get a job, but also be charitable and hospitable.

For a matter of historical record we fought the Romans on and off for 200 years.

4.) Jews do not believe that all other religions are 100% "wrong".
We see a clear origin of Christianity and Islam, and an explanation for their existence, and a clear recognition of how in some part they share values with us and how in others how they differ.
The other religion recognised with in this way is the Druze religion.

4b.) This is a bit of a long section!
I write this from my cursory knowledge of other faiths only.

As for non-biblical faiths:

There are links between Judaism and what could be broadly known as the Hindu faith.
We share ideas of ritual bathing.
Though we are very much against any notion of idol worship or multiple deities.
Though a Hindu I once discussed this with told me that they have one deity, and the different sort of idols they have are sort of sub divisions.
A Hindu will have to clarify.

As for Buddhism we do have meditation in Judaism but it is different from theirs, and we are concerned with playing a part in this world, not detaching from it.

With Shinto they are another religion where men wear a phylactery upon the head in ritual. Aside from this I am not aware of shared religious beliefs though it is likely that one of the lost tribes of Israel made it's way to Japan and has left an imprint on their culture. That is a whole 'nother thread!

With Ras Tafari they also talk a lot of Zion though I believe they regard this as Ethiopia rather than Israel.
King David and King Soloman are important figures for us and them alike.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
466
Likes
229
Points
44
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
@Schwadevivre

The language of your post is pointedly arrogant.
You represent simply your opinions.
To claim something is a lie, without entering into reasoned debate, adds nothing at all to this thread.
These are not just my opinions, they are the opinions of many scholars and commentators in both within Judaism and outside. I agree that I can be abrasive but any arrogance is in your imagination and the imputation would seem to be nothing more than an "ad hominem" fallacy

It is not arrogance to point to the weakness of your argument that the Torah has "... actually predicted events which would later happen" which fails because of the issues of forgery within and misinterpretation of the Torah. Examples include:
a) the problems with the Pentacheuk, the multiple authorship and redactions of the texts as well as the false attribution to the mythical figure, Moses (that mythicism is not just my opinion also that of multiple organisations - such as the Israeli Antiquities Authority);
b) the Book of Daniel being forged in the mid-2nd Century;
c) the "prophecy" of the Davidic line was falsified by the rule of the Levite Maccabees and Hasmoneans;
d) the necessity for the extensive midrash required to explain what precise terms mean.

In respect of the interpretation problem I suggest you go to the blog Musings of an Apikoris
 

INT21

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
3,538
Likes
2,325
Points
154
Victory,

...But then in my opinion, we did have a 'man on the spot" and the notes he took are what is written in the Old Testament, along with divine writings. ..

I can see how your faith may be sufficient to allow you to believe in a Deity. But how does this ancient scribe fit in ?

Is there any reference to such a person from so far back ?

INT21
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,073
Likes
6,413
Points
294
Secondly, Analogue Boy, this is a Fortean Forum.
Now you have your beliefs and I have mine, and you clearly do not share mine on this subject.
But "Earth Mysteries" are very much part of the Fortean fold, regardless of where you stand, and to discuss them fits with this forum.
So your flippancy just reads as rude and arrogant.
Believe it or not, I know exactly what this site is all about and I’ve been reading the FT since the first issues.
Frankly, I think if more people had approached things with a healthy degree of cynicism and a huge dose of humour and flippancy rather than blind faith, the world would have seen through a ton of bullshit and we wouldn’t have had as much historic death and suffering.
 

Victory

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
125
Likes
167
Points
44
Location
London
Victory,

...But then in my opinion, we did have a 'man on the spot" and the notes he took are what is written in the Old Testament, along with divine writings. ..

I can see how your faith may be sufficient to allow you to believe in a Deity. But how does this ancient scribe fit in ?

Is there any reference to such a person from so far back ?

INT21
Moses and likely a small part of it Joshua.

Oral Jewish tradition says they were the first men to write the Torah on animal skins.

@Schwadevivre

Finkelstein represents one side of a debate about Ir David (City of David).
There is a counter argument which says it is authentic.

Bit of a bizarre debate in my opinion as the Biblical and archaelogical records show that the biblical city of Jerusalem was in
both The Temple Mount and the area to the south now known as Ir David.

@Analogue Boy

Whereeas I argue it is the misuse and twisting of religion which has caused such problems.
And plenty of mass murders have been carried out by atheists.
Evil is evil.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
466
Likes
229
Points
44
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
Finkelstein (and many others) dispute the reality of "King" David. Archaeologically there certainly seems to have been no "unified Kingdom." The only references to a "David" from close to the period is a single ostrakon with the name "Daud" scratched into it. The much later Tel Dan Stele (10th C BCE) and the Moabite Stele (c.850 BCE) mention only a "House of David" which no more implies a real David than the claimed descent of Julius Caesar from Iulus, supposedly the child of the Trojan prince Aeneas.

The naming of a city or district after a mythical being is pretty common - eg Rome and Athens

The Bible is not in any respect an historical record. Like any good collection of myths and fictions it includes half digested historical information to "add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" check the Sharpe series and the tales of Sherlock Holmes
 
Last edited:

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,020
Likes
3,219
Points
234
Well, the Flood narrative (for example) is pretty much global, and certainly featured in Mesopotamian legend, but whether that then informed other Middle Eastern cultures or whether they had the story in their own right probably depends on to whom you listen.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,073
Likes
6,413
Points
294
@Analogue Boy

Whereeas I argue it is the misuse and twisting of religion which has caused such problems.
And plenty of mass murders have been carried out by atheists.
Evil is evil.
While I’m not going to argue the point of twisted religions and atheist attrocities, ‘Evil’ is a term we all understand but it does bear the heavy religious overtones of an opposite of Godly goodliness.
However, it’s probably not best to discuss the nature and origin of ‘Evil’ when we can’t even decide whether The Bible is fact or fiction.
 

Victory

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
125
Likes
167
Points
44
Location
London
The Bible is not in any respect an historical record.
So how do you explain such things as the remains of the (second) Temple in Jerusalem, or the remains of it's associated ritual baths in Siloam?
Or of the Arch of Titus in Rome showing some of the golden ornaments from the temple being brought over to Rome?
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
466
Likes
229
Points
44
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
Firstly, we do not know what remains of the 2nd Temple or the dating of what structures remain as religious problems have quashed any attempts at archaeology. Secondly, the Arch of Titus displays the plunder, it does not date the time of manufacture of that plunder

The 2nd Temple is ATTRIBUTED to Solomon, but no trace of that worthy has ever been found, Buildings supposedly constructed during his reign elsewhere have a been shown to be out of period and show no sign of unity of design or architecture. Additionally, many records from that time exist but none have any mention of this supposedly powerful monarch and no records of this literate and wise kingdom have ever been found.

The Pool of Siloam is irrelevant, yes it is mentioned in the Torah/Talmud but attributing it to any biblical character is entirely guesswork.

You are making the entirely unverified assumption that the biblical texts date from the period you claim and that they accurately describe history - they do no such thing.

The modern consensus is that the written works in the Torah contain elements dating from no earlier than about 800 BCE, that all were heavily edited and redacted, and that the texts vary between which tradition of Judaisms kept them.

One more point, be very wary about using Solomon as your example, 1 Kings 11:4-5 makes a point of claiming Solomon ended his life as a polytheist
 

Victory

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
125
Likes
167
Points
44
Location
London
Firstly, we do not know what remains of the 2nd Temple or the dating of what structures remain as religious problems have quashed any attempts at archaeology. Secondly, the Arch of Titus displays the plunder, it does not date the time of manufacture of that plunder

The 2nd Temple is ATTRIBUTED to Solomon, but no trace of that worthy has ever been found,

One more point, be very wary about using Solomon as your example, 1 Kings 11:4-5 makes a point of claiming Solomon ended his life as a polytheist
We can see what remains of the second Temple by going to Jerusalem and standing right in front of it.
Massive walls, columns and massive chunks of stone!

Then you can walk underground in the tunnels alongside the Western Wall.

There is an archaeological park just to the South of the Western Wall plaza, between the Wall and Ir David, and there are digs to the South of the Temple Mount on a frequent basis.
There are parts of the plateau where archaeology does not happen for political reasons, or where Arabs try to remove any trace of Jewish presence.

The Pool of Siloam was used by the priests.

King Solomon's period of wavering from solely Judaism - what relevance does that have to whether he existed or not?
Many believe he returned to solely Judaism before death.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
466
Likes
229
Points
44
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
Looking at massive walls, columns and massive chunks of stone as well as tunnels that are not in a datable context and bear no dating information is meaningless. No-one knows who built the "second" temple or the date when it was commenced or completed.

The existence of an archaeological park does not confirm the existence of David any more than the naming of the lower city "ir David" confirms that person existed. At the risk of "poisoning the well" note that some of these archaeological parks and museums are funded by Christian fundamentalist groups and display the biases of these groups

The pool of Siloam appears to have been, originally, the covered water supply to the city, essential given the vast quantity of blood and offal generated in the Temple and discarded in and near other water sources, the fact it was used for ritual purposes does not date the structures. Yes, it was used by priests but so what? Water from taps is used by Christian priests to baptise people after it has been consecrated, the existence of mains water does not prove the existence of John the Baptist

The facts remain, there is no evidence of David or Solomon or the Unified Kingdom in the period assigned to it by scholars from the evidence in the text.
 

Victory

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
125
Likes
167
Points
44
Location
London
Looking at massive walls, columns and massive chunks of stone as well as tunnels that are not in a datable context and bear no dating information is meaningless. No-one knows who built the "second" temple or the date when it was commenced or completed.

The existence of an archaeological park does not confirm the existence of David any more than the naming of the lower city "ir David" confirms that person existed. At the risk of "poisoning the well" note that some of these archaeological parks and museums are funded by Christian fundamentalist groups and display the biases of these groups

The pool of Siloam appears to have been, originally, the covered water supply to the city, essential given the vast quantity of blood and offal generated in the Temple and discarded in and near other water sources, the fact it was used for ritual purposes does not date the structures. Yes, it was used by priests but so what? Water from taps is used by Christian priests to baptise people after it has been consecrated, the existence of mains water does not prove the existence of John the Baptist

The facts remain, there is no evidence of David or Solomon or the Unified Kingdom in the period assigned to it by scholars from the evidence in the text.
They are datable and are dated; no one is going to fix an English Heritage Blue Plaque to the Western Wall but there are numerous books about it, online resources and tour guides who will explain it.

The pool of Siloam matches descriptions of the water supply yes. If it was used for ritual purposes, as described by research and in the Talmud, then that by it's very nature that dates it to the Temple, which we know was built 516BCE.

Discarded blood and offal?
Left in the valley of Gehinnom, not Siloam (Shiloah.)
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
466
Likes
229
Points
44
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
They are datable and are dated; no one is going to fix an English Heritage Blue Plaque to the Western Wall but there are numerous books about it, online resources and tour guides who will explain it.
And those dates have nothing to do with David/Solomon. Please cite any physical evidence for the existence of those worthies

The pool of Siloam matches descriptions of the water supply yes. If it was used for ritual purposes, as described by research and in the Talmud, then that by it's very nature that dates it to the Temple, which we know was built 516BCE.
So now Solomon dates to 516 BCE? Conventionally the dating of his building work is between 980 and 920 BCE. All the existence of the current Temple fragments prove is that there was a ritual site established sometime prior to 500 BCE on Temple Mount

Discarded blood and offal?
Left in the valley of Gehinnom, not Siloam (Shiloah.)
That was the point, the other water sources were contaminated hence the need for the extensive tunnel bringing water into the city. The existence of the pool of Siloam does not support any claims made in the Talmud regarding David/Solomon

Your claims regarding the Temple are equivalent to me pointing to the settlement remains at Tintagel and the much later mediaeval fortress on the same site as proving the existence of Arthur
 

Victory

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
125
Likes
167
Points
44
Location
London
@Schwadevivre
I did not write that King Solomon dates from 516BCE.
He built the first Temple, around 970BCE.

I cite the Tel Dan inscription...why would it mention "The House of David" if no King David existed?
It dates from roughly 800BCE.

But you might then claim that just because this is when it dates from, it could have been a myth even then!

Research by Professor Avraham Faust has shown a growth in wealth and urbanisation during the time of King David...not that you woudl believe this as you do not believe King David existed.
Finkelstein is but one side of a discussion.

The archaeology is continuing and emerging....ultimately my belief is not based in it and I do not feel any need to back up my belief in King David by this archaeology....ultimately your non belief is rooted in this, what you would frame as "lack of" relevant archaeology.
 

Ermintruder

Existential pixelfixer
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
4,843
Likes
5,744
Points
209
@Victory - until I read your response on the points about Judaism giving Jesus Christ of Narareth some recognition as having been a prophet, I had not realised you were yourself Jewish.

May I ask, please: does this mean that from the perspective of Judaism, Jesus is seen as having been a minor messiah (and in effect, the wrong Christ) not yet the proper one?

Does the Torah / Talmud therefore foretell of a time when conventional Judaism will be redeemed (and or Israel) by a future Christlike New Messiah? This may be overthinking on my part (nb I am not a Christian myself)

It may even be the case that Joseph Atwill's book 'Caeser's Messiah' would be direct canon-compliant for Judaism to accept?

Caeser's Messiah said:
Bruno Bauer a 19thC German scholar believed that Christianity was Rome's attemp to create a mass religion that encourages slaves to accept their station in life. In our era, Robert Eisenman concluded that the New Testament was the literature of a Judaeic messianic movement rewritten with a pro-Roman perspective. This work, however, represents a completely new way of understanding the New Testament
 
Last edited:

Victory

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
125
Likes
167
Points
44
Location
London
@Victory - until I read your response on the points about Judaeism giving Jesus Christ of Narareth some recognition as having been a prophet, I had not realised you were yourself Jewish.

Does this mean that from the perspective of Judaeism, Jesus is seen as having been a minor messiah (and in effect, the wrong Christ) not the proper one?

Does the Torah / Talmud therefore foretell of a time when conventional Judaeism will be redeemed (and or Israel) by a future Christlike New Messiah? This may be overthinking on my part (nb I am not a Christian myself)

It may even be the case that Joseph Atwill's book 'Caeser's Messiah' would be direct canon-compliant for Judaism to accept?
To answer you:

1.) From the perspective of Judaism, JC was a Jewish religious student who deviated from Jewish teachings and went off on his own path.
He is not accorded any status as a Messiah.
It is recognised that aspects of Christianity show civilising values which are beneficial for all people i.e. the 10 Commandments.

2.) One of the fundamentals of Judaism is that the world, all people, will enter an era of peace between nations which is ushered in by a Messiah.
This era will be where all people recognise there is one G-D.

(Technically speaking there are two messiahs, who come close in time to each other, the first is temporal the second is spiritual, but when people speak of "The Messiah" it refers to the later spiritual one.
The first messiah is more of an internal Jewish matter, the dramatic changes in world order and spirituality occur with the second messiah.)

3.) As for the Atwill book, I have not read it.
But it's premise is possible, as the Romans did their level best to destroy Judaism from when they invaded Israel and Judah in the first century.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
466
Likes
229
Points
44
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
@Schwadevivre
I did not write that King Solomon dates from 516BCE.
He built the first Temple, around 970BCE.
And there is still zero evidence he is any more than a myth and no evidence of a "First Temple" dating from that time

I cite the Tel Dan inscription...why would it mention "The House of David" if no King David existed?
It dates from roughly 800BCE.
I wrote "The much later Tel Dan Stele (10th C BCE) and the Moabite Stele (c.850 BCE) mention only a "House of David" which no more implies a real David than the claimed descent of Julius Caesar from Iulus, supposedly the child of the Trojan prince Aeneas." (Emphasis added) Please try reading for comprehension. In answer to your why - Why make a claim of descent from mythical beings? For the same reason the gens Iulia of Caesar claimed Iulus (and hence Aeneas) and both Plantagenets and Tudors claimed to be heirs of Arthur and the Japanese Royal Family claim the Emperor Jimmu, to prop up their claims to nobility.

But you might then claim that just because this is when it dates from, it could have been a myth even then!
There is still no evidence supporting the construction of the First Temple by Solomon only later attribution

Research by Professor Avraham Faust has shown a growth in wealth and urbanisation during the time of King David...not that you woudl believe this as you do not believe King David existed.
Finkelstein is but one side of a discussion.
Please cite any evidence produced by Prof Faust showing a figure called David actually existed. Presupposing that the urbanisation of ir David was because of this myth is either misreading of Faust's claims or (if stemming from Faust) abysmal scholarship. There are many other's who support Finkelstein including (for example) Prof Stavrakopolou

The archaeology is continuing and emerging....ultimately my belief is not based in it and I do not feel any need to back up my belief in King David by this archaeology....ultimately your non belief is rooted in this, what you would frame as "lack of" relevant archaeology.
My non-belief is based on an utter lack of any evidence, produce evidence and I will change my view. Archaeology used to support the idea of Solomon and David but now is agnostic on the matter because there is no direct evidence

Edit for clarity
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
466
Likes
229
Points
44
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
To answer you:

1.) From the perspective of Judaism, JC was a Jewish religious student who deviated from Jewish teachings and went off on his own path.
He is not accorded any status as a Messiah.
It is recognised that aspects of Christianity show civilising values which are beneficial for all people i.e. the 10 Commandments.
This supports the largely mythological status of Jesus given that several others have been given the title of Messiah from Cyrus the Great (called such by Elijah) through Simon bar Kochba and latterly Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

The generally accepted 10 Commandments are not particularly civilising or particularly beneficial. The first 4 are religious statements (as is the 10th of the Samaritan Pentateuch). The 5th (4th for Catholics and Lutherans) has harmed many people; there is no reason to honour an abusive parent. The accepted 9th/10th is a thought crime. The rest are restatements of moral principles common throughout the world and owing nothing to the Biblical deity.

2.) One of the fundamentals of Judaism is that the world, all people, will enter an era of peace between nations which is ushered in by a Messiah.
A fundamental of some sects of MODERN Judaism and certainly not the Judaism of the time prior to Jesus

This era will be where all people recognise there is one G-D.
If your deity is so pitiful that you have to leave out one vowel of a modern term for a deity you might need to rethink your assumptions. The only term forbidden is the Tetragrammaton.

(Technically speaking there are two messiahs, who come close in time to each other, the first is temporal the second is spiritual, but when people speak of "The Messiah" it refers to the later spiritual one.
The first messiah is more of an internal Jewish matter, the dramatic changes in world order and spirituality occur with the second messiah.)
See above

But it's premise is possible, as the Romans did their level best to destroy Judaism from when they invaded Israel and Judah in the first century.
No, they did not. The Jews were treated exactly as every other client state even down to the actions when they repeatedly rebelled against their own Kings and Roman authority. The Romans did not "invade" Judea they were invited in by the Hasmonean rulers to bolster them against the Parthian empire, the Egyptians and the Decapolis[/QUOTE]
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,891
Likes
858
Points
129
This source, The Trumpet, is deeply suspect; nothing more than a US Christian end-times propaganda site.

The archaeologist in question, Eilat Mazar, is also deeply suspect; someone who excavates with the objective of confirming her faith, rather than seeking the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat_Mazar#Scientific_approach
Mazar's Bible-inspired approach has been a source of contention between her and other secular archaeologists.
According to Mazar herself, "I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other, and I try to consider everything."[16]
However, Israel Finkelstein and other archaeologists from Tel Aviv University have flagged concern that, with reference to her 2006 dating of the "Solomonic city wall" in the area to the south of the Temple Mount known as the "Ophel", "the biblical text dominates this field operation, not archaeology. Had it not been for Mazar's literal reading of the biblical text, she never would have dated the remains to the 10th century BCE with such confidence.[17] Regarding her dating of her City of David findings in general, and the Large Stone Structure in particular, the chronological data recovered in her excavations indicate that the sole Iron Age fortification system extending in this area was in use during the 8th–7th centuries BCE. However, according to the biblical sources the Solomonic city-wall must have passed here, hence [she maintains] the fortification system in question must be Solomonic in date.[17]
Mazar was also cautioned by epigrapher Ryan Byrne following the 2008 confusion over the inscription on the Shelomit seal, that "in the mad dash to report biblical artifacts to the public or connect discoveries with the most obscure persons or events reported in the Bible, there is sometimes a tendency to compromise the analytical caution that objects of such value so dearly deserve."[18]
 

Victory

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
125
Likes
167
Points
44
Location
London
Schwadevivre

Your scepticism of the Tel Dan inscription is something non-provable either way...because to my knowledge photography did not exist back then.
So a mention of The House of David is good enough for me, but for you it could be nothing more than a ficition novel which happens to be written on stone, a long time ago.

As for the other points, they were made in response to questions ermintruder asked me.

Your replies are written through your agenda of non-belief.
They also show a lack of knowledge of Judaism.

1.) No one has ever been accorded the universally accepted title of Messiah in Judaism.
There have been egotists who have claimed they were a Messiah, and there have been false Messiahs where some people mistakenly got their hopes up about an individual.
There are also those whose lives have shown attributes of a Messiah and so are believed to be somehow linked to the Messiah on a spiritual level.
But never has anyone yet been called "The Messiah" by Judaism and world Jewry and accepted by Judaism and world Jewry, because the conditions for the acceptance of the Messiah have yet to be met.

1b.) Your criticisms of the 10 Commandements show your lack of understanding of them.
They are a summary of the basics of morality.
Nowhere are we told to honour abusive parents, as you claim!
And not coveting a neighbour's possessions, is a good thing.

2.) It has been fundamental within Judaism that a Messiah will need to happen from the very start of Judaism.
It is intrinsic to Judaism that we live in a world in need of rectification.
This was known about by Moses for sure, some 1500 years before JC.

3.) It is totally customary for Jews to write G-D, I am not going to apologise to you who is clearly a non-believer with an axe to grind!

4.) The Romans destroyed the Temple in the first century, a grievous act.
They then set about de-Judaising the land, renaming Jewish places with Roman names and murdering over a million Jews, and took Jewish slaves.
A remnant of Jews survived in the Galilee for another 200 years then almost all were expelled.
I would call that "attempting to destroy Judaism!"
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
466
Likes
229
Points
44
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
No, I am accurately describing the Tel Dan inscription, it is not "scepticism" to point to the fact that it was inscribed long after the time of any possible "David." Neither is it scepticism to point to parallel uses of mythical ancestors by families in a ruling class.

1) Irrelevant and meaningless. Cyrus was accepted as a Messiah by Elijah and, according to the myths, no person will ever be accepted by all elements of the People as Messiah. None of those I cited themselves claimed to be Messiah this was a title given to them by their followers

1b) Try reading the 10 Commandments, I'll use the Jimmy's English because it is familiar I cannot be bothered to switch formatting for Hebrew
One - I am the Lord thy God a declaration, not a moral instruction​
Two in the Talmud (but still one in the LXX and most other sources) - Thou shalt have no other gods before me, a religious instruction not a moral one​
Still Two in the Talmud but now LXX (still one to most Christians) - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, a religious instruction not a moral one​
Three in LXX and the Talmud (Two for many Christians and the Samaritans) - Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, a religious instruction not a moral one​
Four in LXX and the Talmud, (still Three to the Samaritans and most Christians - Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy, a religious instruction, not a moral one​
Five, LXX and Talmud (four to Samaritans and many Christians - Honour thy father and thy mother, not moral given the abusiveness of many parents​
Six, Seven, Eight Nine and Ten (Actual ordering varies for many Christians) - Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, Thou shalt not covet( several things), Common moral instructions which are known to many cultures most totally unrelated to, or predating, Judaism.​
Ten for Samaritans - You shall set up these stones, which I command you today, on Mount Gerizim, Religious, not moral, command​
I've not included the alternative commandments from Exodus 34 although those are the only ones identified as "THE Commandments" and which were replacements for those destroyed by Moses.

2) So by this argument all those of the People who have declared various people to be Messiah are or were "not True Jews." Please inform the Lubavitchers of this intriguing fact

By the way, Moses was definitely mythical

3) Some Jews, far from all, and the Mizvot (as amended by various Midrash) only apply to the Tetragrammaton. It remains fine to use the other names such as El, Adonai and Elohim, though of course these do point to the polytheistic roots of Judaism

4) This is not the same as "... the Romans did their level best to destroy Judaism from when they invaded Israel and Judah in the first century" The Jewish War was not an invasion it was a continuing occupation and repression of a rebellion.

Additionally, the Roman's did NOT attempt to "destroy Judaism" The virtually all of the Jewish communities across the Mediterranean and the Near East were untouched. The Temple was destroyed and looted but only those living in the immediate environs of Jerusalem were displaced, the remainder still lived in Judea and (eventually) became Palestinians. Rabbinic Judaism replaced the Temple cult and flourishes to this day
 

Cochise

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
4,513
Likes
3,515
Points
159
This supports the largely mythological status of Jesus given that several others have been given the title of Messiah from Cyrus the Great (called such by Elijah) through Simon bar Kochba and latterly Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

The generally accepted 10 Commandments are not particularly civilising or particularly beneficial. The first 4 are religious statements (as is the 10th of the Samaritan Pentateuch). The 5th (4th for Catholics and Lutherans) has harmed many people; there is no reason to honour an abusive parent. The accepted 9th/10th is a thought crime. The rest are restatements of moral principles common throughout the world and owing nothing to the Biblical deity.


A fundamental of some sects of MODERN Judaism and certainly not the Judaism of the time prior to Jesus


If your deity is so pitiful that you have to leave out one vowel of a modern term for a deity you might need to rethink your assumptions. The only term forbidden is the Tetragrammaton.


See above


No, they did not. The Jews were treated exactly as every other client state even down to the actions when they repeatedly rebelled against their own Kings and Roman authority. The Romans did not "invade" Judea they were invited in by the Hasmonean rulers to bolster them against the Parthian empire, the Egyptians and the Decapolis
[/QUOTE]


I find those who are so fanatically anti-Bible as concerning as any other fanatics. Why do you think people wrote all this stuff down unless they _thought_ they were recording history? It may be inaccurate but they did not mean it as fiction.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
466
Likes
229
Points
44
Location
Near Skinners Bottom
I find those who are so fanatically anti-Bible as concerning as any other fanatics. Why do you think people wrote all this stuff down unless they _thought_ they were recording history? It may be inaccurate but they did not mean it as fiction.
I'm not anti-Bible, the Bible exists and it records the myths, legends and (rarely) the real history of what was a small culture based in the Near East. It is hugely informative about the development of one particular monotheism from polytheism via henotheism and cultural accretion

What I am "anti-" is treating those books as a history instead of being a part of history in general. I am also "anti-" the ridiculous misinterpretations put upon the words in the Bible and the ignorance of the multitude of authors (at least 4 for Genesis alone), editors and other redactors of the text. Factional fights between groups are included without most copies of this work noting all of the contradictory influences.

Treating the Bible as the Holy Writ is as foolish as the ancient Greeks treating the Iliad as a guide to territorial disputes, morality and history.
 
Top