TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Ancient Jewish history a complete sham?!
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »

Judaism/Christianity a complete sham???

Ok this is probably nothing new to anyone in Israel but worth a discussion anyway...

Israeli archaeologist claims exodus never happened and Kingdom of Israel was very crap!

ok well im gonna post the first bump here and having a laugh at the same time..id say this thread will run for about the next 3 years..300 plus posts..good man george..LOL

Yea think I may make this my last post and sit back and enjoy the action!!!

I don't think this is nothing new.

Anyone who has studied just a little about history/archaelogy knows that much of what we think we know we don't know for certain.

History, similar to physics is simply an explination with likelihood of certainty.

Unlike physics, history has ridicilously little certainty. We don't know anything 1000+ years back really with much certainty. Most of our history is derived from the written word, liable, and hearsay. Little of what is written can ever be co-oberated (imagine a historian in the future trying to prove/disprove that the USA war on Iraq was 100% motivated by oil using an archaeological record).

Most is simply conjecture etc.

There is no archaeological record that Moses ever existed, Abraham, Jesus, or Mohammed. There is a vast historical record however that these figures did indeed exist. Therefore, we think it is most likely they did exist (unless we assume for some reason that the Roman scribes had a reason to makeup Jesus, etc).

Using Archaeology to disprove history is quiet ridicilous. You use the archaeological record to either bring support or break down the support of a historical argument, but if you form a hisotircal argument through archaeolgoy alone, its simply going to be and stay a weak argument, especially if the theory describes intangible things such as war, peace, thought, politics, and power.

Obviously one actually has to look at his findings to be able to either support or refutre his conclusion. The article links only display his conclusions, so I can not say he is wrong or not.

I'm suspicous though as in the article Mr. Finkelstine says that "Jericho was not fortified and had no walls, and it's doubtful that there was a settlement there at the time". That statement alone is odd to me as from what I recall Jericho is the oldest continually-inhabitated city and the oldest walled city on earth.

Not all the bible is the historical absolute (your shocked I know :rolleyes. Obviously Judea was never the a vast, rich kingdom (it never claimed to be though either) when one compares it to the weatlh/territory/populations of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Babylon, etc.

It was never very big, most people were shepards, and the Kingdom enjoyed the added wealth of simply being a strategic geopolitical (by taxing trade routes).

Anyway it just seems like a mute point. I'm just wondering what "new" archaeology Mr. Finklestein has uncovered to prove his conclusion ... I didn't get any sense that there is new archaeology so I'm quiet skeptical why there is a new argument...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus imagine a historian in the future trying to prove/disprove that the USA war on Iraq was 100% motivated by oil using an archaeological record

To be fair, he'd just use the internet...

Anyway, historical records are archaeology (if they came from the right time)

Archaeology can never prove opinions, but it can prove or disprove dates or events - if the Israelites came from Egypt, there would have been shit loads of evidence in the Sinai...yet there is nothing whatsoever (which means the Exodus didn't happen, and your actually Palestinians! )

wouldn't this be bad for the religions based off of judisim as well?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 wouldn't this be bad for the religions based off of judisim as well?

Yep

Altho you could argue it would be worse for Judaism as thats the only religion that based their rights to a state on it...

(Altho even that claim isn't too much affected by this archaeologists claims)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yep Altho you could argue it would be worse for Judaism as thats the only religion that based their rights to a state on it... (Altho even that claim isn't too much affected by this archaeologists claims)

and what do muslims base their right on? islam was based on christian, jewish, and arabic paganism of the 600's.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: and what do muslims base their right on? islam was based on christian, jewish, and arabic paganism of the 600's.

What Muslim right are you refering to?

Wow! What's next? Don't tell me that Noah's flood didn't happen either!!!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Wow! What's next? Don't tell me that Noah's flood didn't happen either!!!

Well...

quote:

and what do muslims base their right on? islam was based on christian, jewish, and arabic paganism of the 600's.

Can't I say the same for Christianity where they stole the ideas of Christ and added bits and pieces later on Ecumenial councils, as Christianity has undisputed similaritities with several other self professed or rumoured deities around the time.

Sorry for knocking ya down, just thought you wanted to know that bit of info

quote:

Originally posted by kaffeemeister Can't I say the same for Christianity where they stole the ideas of Christ and added bits and pieces later on Ecumenial councils, as Christianity has undisputed similaritities with several other self professed or rumoured deities around the time. Sorry for knocking ya down, just thought you wanted to know that bit of info

ok, lets turn this into a religious battlefield. provide evidence for your allegations, and ill counter.

really, ide rather not get into it...

quote:

What Muslim right are you refering to?

well, muslims have mecca. jews should get jerusalem.

do u realize that islam makes saudi arabia rich?? the millions of pilgrims each year to see the kabbah, and how they pray in the direction of mecca, and how they have to travel to mecca. sometimes ive thought that muslims are really worshipping mecca rather than anything else. thats just my observation though.

Catholics have the Pope..prods have..?and aethists have nothing..

quote:

Originally posted by zig Catholics have the Pope..prods have..?and aethists have nothing..

protestants have jesus christ, atheists have nothing because they believe in nothing. but really their faith is in this world, so they have this world. they do worship something, if not a god, then music, their job, becoming rich, its impossible to not have faith in anything.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: protestants have jesus christ, atheists have nothing because they believe in nothing. but really their faith is in this world, so they have this world. they do worship something, if not a god, then music, their job, becoming rich, its impossible to not have faith in anything.

I can honestly say I don't believe in anything. But my views on almost everything are pretty scientific, so I guess that's why I don't believe in anything 'metaphysical' or whatever the term is.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley To be fair, he'd just use the internet... Anyway, historical records are archaeology (if they came from the right time)

Not necessarily, history is what was written down. Archaeology is what isn't.

quote:

Archaeology can never prove opinions, but it can prove or disprove dates or events - if the Israelites came from Egypt, there would have been shit loads of evidence in the Sinai...yet there is nothing whatsoever

Right.

But lack of evidence can not disprove a theory. Just because we have no proof God exist, doesn't mean he doesn't.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem so improbable that "shit loads" of evidence wouldn't be found in the Sinai regarding the Jews. The Jews there were nomadic - they did not have houses, dwellings, etc, they were shepards.

It is also uncertain as to the exact numbers of Jews that would have actually been during exodous and the timespan it lasted (who says it lasted 40 years? maybe just 4 months. Just because one part of the story is exagerated or incorrect does not mean the whole lot of it is wrong). Perhaps in all reality Jews moved back from Egypt to Judea for a period of 40 years... and oral lure changed it into the tradition we all know now as exodus. There are some other improbable events that might also indicate such a timeline such as the 7 plagues that some archaeologist believe could have actually happened over a period of a certain number of years....

I can't believe the fact that nobody found 'evidence' of an event that happened 3000+ years ago for a timespan not longer than 40 years, with a nomadic, small population, in a vast desert,
is proof that something didn't happen. Perhaps we don't know where to look or perhaps no evidence does exist. It still does not disprove it.

There are other archaeological indicators (such as the fact that the drought stated in the bible as the cause for the Jews to move to Egypt (which was flourishing with food) actually did happen) that can lead us to believe good reason for something to happen.

Anyway, there can't really be any archaelogical evidence for the Jews. What are you going to do? DNA test a mummy to try and find some mythic Jew gene? Theres proof that people lived in Sinia some 3000 odd years ago. There is proof that people were enslaved in Egypt during the time that they build the pyrmaids. Aside from that it really all and always will ever be speculation with some degree of certainty.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer I can honestly say I don't believe in anything. But my views on almost everything are pretty scientific, so I guess that's why I don't believe in anything 'metaphysical' or whatever the term is.

if u dont believe in anything, how are your views scientific? do u not believe in science?

u really do believe in something. your faith is in science, and so your faith is science, and so your religion is science. there is no such thing as an atheist. we were created spiritual beings, and so we have to worship something, its in our nature. doesnt mean u go to the museum every sunday and sing songs of worship to the scientist guy. but wherever your faith lies, is where your religion lies.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: if u dont believe in anything, how are your views scientific? do u not believe in science. u really do believe in something. your faith is in science, and so your faith is science, and so your religion is science. there is no such thing as an atheist. we were created spiritual beings, and so we have to worship something, its in our nature.

I was gonna say this in my post, but didn't because I was hoping noone would hove to point that out.
I do believe in the laws of science, but you can't say it is my religion. I think you're confusing atheism with nihilism. I simply meant I don't believe in anything religious or spiritual (atheism), and not that I don't believe in anything at all, like gravity and stuff like that.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: and so we have to worship something, its in our nature.

not to butt your argument, but I think humans are quiet capable of acting outside their 'nature' as gays/transexuals/St. Andrew/pedophiles and the like have demonstrated

ok I'm sorry St. Andrew, that one was pretty bad

i edited my message, there was more i had to say, so read it again and respond.

quote:

if u dont believe in anything, how are your views scientific? do u not believe in science? u really do believe in something. your faith is in science, and so your faith is science, and so your religion is science. there is no such thing as an atheist. we were created spiritual beings, and so we have to worship something, its in our nature. doesnt mean u go to the museum every sunday and sing songs of worship to the scientist guy. but wherever your faith lies, is where your religion lies.

quote:

I was gonna say this in my post, but didn't because I was hoping noone would hove to point that out. I do believe in the laws of science, but you can't say it is my religion. I think you're confusing atheism with nihilism. I simply meant I don't believe in anything religious or spiritual (atheism), and not that I don't believe in anything at all, like gravity and stuff like that.

to believe is to have faith. you believe in the laws of science. and so your faith is in the laws of science. and to have faith is to have religion, and so your religion is the laws of science. you are naturalist. do u get my logic? there is no such thing as an atheist. everybody believes in something. something is god to everyone. whether its trance music or otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: i edited my message, there was more i had to say, so read it again and respond. to believe is to have faith. you believe in the laws of science. and so your faith is in the laws of science. and to have faith is to have religion, and so your religion is the laws of science. you are naturalist. do u get my logic? there is no such thing as an atheist. everybody believes in something. something is god to everyone. whether its trance music or otherwise.

What is your definition of religion? It's more then just believing in something. Religion is a way of life, not just a set of beliefs. bah,whatever, I'm don't want to get into this any further really.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus not to butt your argument, but I think humans are quiet capable of acting outside their 'nature' as gays/transexuals/St. Andrew/pedophiles and the like have demonstrated ok I'm sorry St. Andrew, that one was pretty bad

Hahaha, you're such an ass. But it's a good one!

quote:

ok, lets turn this into a religious battlefield. provide evidence for your allegations, and ill counter. really, ide rather not get into it...

I rather not as well... as i predict that it'll get messy ... perhaps Opus might be willing to give ya some insights into the topic. However, as a regular trend of "religious discussions", it tends get long and tedious for both sides, at the end we'll either agree on nothing or agree on little. At the same time if one is not aware of the tone of language he/she speaks in, it'll easy piss the other person off .

LINK
The above link is just of the stuff i was referring to. As the header of the page says "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed", it's predictable you'll disagree with it, and i'm fine with that

quote:

to believe is to have faith. you believe in the laws of science. and so your faith is in the laws of science. and to have faith is to have religion, and so your religion is the laws of science. you are naturalist. do u get my logic? there is no such thing as an atheist. everybody believes in something. something is god to everyone. whether its trance music or otherwise.

The definition of the world faith is heavily disputed, you can say that it describes "complete confidence in something" or "belief in the divine and supernatural powers"; either that or "all of the above".

To be an atheist it's just simply " god == "null"; ", any other conflicitly definition of it within the whole belief system of a person would crash the OS . But i think where you're getting, and you're sorta right in that.

There's a lot of words in the english language that aren't "explicit" enough, thus i propose we start using "nswspeak"

i think Tomer has a good point what is the defination of religion ..oxford english dictionary

1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power,esp.in a personal god
or gods entitled to obiedience or worship

2. the expression of this in worship

3. a particular system of faith and worship

4. life under monastic vows

5. a thing one is devoted to

ok point number 5 is probably the only one that i would have a problem with if im devoted to my girlfriend for example it hardly constitutes religion imo,considering yhat the first 4 points are very specific and really are not open to much arguement i think point number 5 is very loosely worded another example would be my job,i love my job and im devoted to it but again it hardly constitutes religion ,anyone else have any ophinions

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.