Will the real Biblical Israel please stand up?
Weland
Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
The problem that seems to be missed is that there isn't *one* biblical
Israel, there are many. Just off the top of my head, there's the
character Israel in the book of Genesis, there's the "Israel" in the
Exodus story, another Israel in the Wilderness and Conquest narratives
(2 separate narratives), the Israel of the Deuteronomist, the so-called
northern kingdom of Israel, the "Israel" in the south kingdom (yes, the
texts even after the Assyrian conquest call Judah "Israel" at times),
the Israel of the fifth century BCE, the Israel of the Greco-Roman
period.....not all are historical, and those that are are not
necessarily historically presented in the Biblical texts. So which
biblical Israel is being claimed not to have existed?
Likewise, the Bible, as has been stated before here, is a collection of
texts spanning a long time of composition, having many different genres,
by different authors, at different times. Some are mythological, some
legendary, some poetic, some oracular, some historical, at least in so
far as the ancient Near East practiced what we call history. Each text
and what it reports, sometime each separate report, must be studied on
its own and determined what value for historical reconstruction it
presents. There should never be either whosesale acceptance nor
wholesale rejection of the texts and what they report.
A final point: it is a non-sequitur to go from "the extent of Solomon's
kingdom as reported can't be" to applying that to the whole question of
whether there was an historical Israel or at what period of time such a
group showed up on the scene.
Tiglath
Biblical Israel can also mean in a less specific manner the Jews
living in the Levant in the time-span of the Old Testament, and to
deny their existence would be madness.
Although one never knows, it seems that in those long threads about
the stela, by "biblical Isreal" neo-nuts refer to the Jews living
around 1200 B.C.
It is lost to them that the resemblance between the Jews living in
Canaan in 1200 B.C. and the Jews they so despise and hate should be
tenuous at best. The authors of the Old Testament, who don't seem to
know much of what was going on in the region in the previous
millennium, could not know much of the character and history of the
Jews of that time either.
So chances are that the Jews of the late Bronze Age were just a rather
undistinguished Canaanite group of very little "Jewishness."
Clearly, the bible writers project back their character and mores on
people of the remote past who were likely yet to develop them.
Such fine distinctions are lost in those whose history is shaped by
strong emotions like hatred for the Jews. Hence, we have the sad
spectacle of History Deniers, of which Holocaust Deniers are a subset,
fueled by rampant anti-Semitism, and for whom history is mere
political putty.
The fact that they have been ostracized and are constantly mocked is
unfortunately not enough to drive them away.
Maybe be they need to find a horse head in their beds.
Weland
> Biblical Israel can also mean in a less specific manner the Jews
> living in the Levant in the time-span of the Old Testament, and to
> deny their existence would be madness.
Yes, that's what I mean to illustrate and the problem with these blanket
claims is that they confuse the historical and legendary.
> Although one never knows, it seems that in those long threads about
> the stela, by "biblical Isreal" neo-nuts refer to the Jews living
> around 1200 B.C.
>
> It is lost to them that the resemblance between the Jews living in
> Canaan in 1200 B.C. and the Jews they so despise and hate should be
> tenuous at best. The authors of the Old Testament, who don't seem to
> know much of what was going on in the region in the previous
> millennium, could not know much of the character and history of the
> Jews of that time either.
True, though we don't want to go too far down that path: if we compare
for example the "Greeks" of Mycenaean period with the Greeks of the
sixth and fifth centuries, we have a similar problem: discontinuity in
significant ways, and yet some continuity. They too knew little of what
happened in the past millenium, yet kept some things and stories alive.
So we need to be careful about how far on the continuum we go to one
side or the other; and where we place something on that continuum must
be determined on each individual question.
>
> So chances are that the Jews of the late Bronze Age were just a rather
> undistinguished Canaanite group of very little "Jewishness."
Agreed, much of what is distinctive about this group as we know them
won't develop until the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods in the
mid-first millenium BCE. Good point.
> Clearly, the bible writers project back their character and mores on
> people of the remote past who were likely yet to develop them.
Yes, not unusual in the ancient world in the needs of presenting a given
people or dynasty as the latest scions of a long tradition, so their
present is retrojected into their distant past as if there were a
continuous thread connecting that past to the present.
Tiglath
>
> True, though we don't want to go too far down that path: if we compare
> for example the "Greeks" of Mycenaean period with the Greeks of the
> sixth and fifth centuries, we have a similar problem: discontinuity in
> significant ways, and yet some continuity. They too knew little of what
> happened in the past millenium, yet kept some things and stories alive.
> So we need to be careful about how far on the continuum we go to one
> side or the other; and where we place something on that continuum must
> be determined on each individual question.
>
I am not sure how much knowledge of past generations comes down
through oral tradition versus epigraphic legacy, but to whatever
extent the later contributes to that knowledge it made a much bigger
contribution in Greece than in Canaan, where archeology is marked by a
dearth of written material, curiously next to Egypt where the written
legacy is massive.
Therefore any continuity between Bronze Age Jews and Jews of the
monarchic period is harder to assess in that void. The question being
whether the Jews of say, the seventh century had the same problem.
Weland
> On Oct 23, 1:47 pm, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>True, though we don't want to go too far down that path: if we compare
>>for example the "Greeks" of Mycenaean period with the Greeks of the
>>sixth and fifth centuries, we have a similar problem: discontinuity in
>>significant ways, and yet some continuity. They too knew little of what
>>happened in the past millenium, yet kept some things and stories alive.
>> So we need to be careful about how far on the continuum we go to one
>>side or the other; and where we place something on that continuum must
>>be determined on each individual question.
>>
>
>
> I am not sure how much knowledge of past generations comes down
> through oral tradition versus epigraphic legacy, but to whatever
> extent the later contributes to that knowledge it made a much bigger
> contribution in Greece than in Canaan, where archeology is marked by a
> dearth of written material, curiously next to Egypt where the written
> legacy is massive.
Oh, general things: if we stick to the Greeks, the Trojan War that
historically were likely a series of wars that eventually ended in the
demise of "Troy" that seemed to be a significant economic rival to
Mycenae and had contacts with the Hittites etc. Or if we want to do
Israel, that they were nomadic tribes, and when they finally settled,
were still an agrarian society with little political cohesion which
seems confirmed by the Merneptah Stele. I'm not suggesting there was
really a Joshua or a Boaz who did the things ascribed to them.
>
> Therefore any continuity between Bronze Age Jews and Jews of the
> monarchic period is harder to assess in that void. The question being
> whether the Jews of say, the seventh century had the same problem.
I don't think the problem would occur to them: hence the anachronisms of
"Ur of the Chaldees" in Genesis or that all the cities mentioned in
Joshua were current in the eighth-seventh century, but problematic for
all of them at any one time 1100 BCE and before. So I'm not sure that
the problem we see is one they would see. I think they would see what
the text presents: a direct, traceable descent.
Matt Giwer
> Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
> Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
> Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
Caught with having to address the simple fact the biblical Israel
did not exist and knowing full well he discussion has always been of the
United Kingdom of David and Solomon, aka Israel, we are treated to
obfuscation instead of agreement.
> The problem that seems to be missed is that there isn't *one* biblical
> Israel, there are many. Just off the top of my head, there's the
> character Israel in the book of Genesis, there's the "Israel" in the
> Exodus story, another Israel in the Wilderness and Conquest narratives (2
> separate narratives), the Israel of the Deuteronomist, the so-called
> northern kingdom of Israel, the "Israel" in the south kingdom (yes, the
> texts even after the Assyrian conquest call Judah "Israel" at times), the
> Israel of the fifth century BCE, the Israel of the Greco-Roman
> period.....not all are historical, and those that are are not necessarily
> historically presented in the Biblical texts. So which biblical Israel is
> being claimed not to have existed?
None of thse were being discussed. So by all means lets pretend you
folks were probably thinking of something else.
> Likewise, the Bible, as has been stated before here, is a collection of
> texts spanning a long time of composition,
That is a fact not in evidence. That is nothing more than a
religious tradition and as such has no standing in these newsgroups.
> having many different genres, by different authors, at different times.
Different authors and different times has not been in question
either. What has been in question is the different times being over a couple
decades at most against the religious belief con composition over centuries.
> Some are mythological, some legendary, some poetic, some oracular, some
> historical, at least in so far as the ancient Near East practiced what we
> call history.
As part of the great retreat of the believers from all of it being
inspired truth they are willing to create different categories. However they
provide no a priori means of determining which goes in which category. Thus
they can simply change categories and pretend nothing has changed.
Further it is not just a matter of which book goes into which
category. It is also which chapter of which book and at times which verse
goes into which category even if they are sequential in the same sentence.
> Each text and what it reports, sometime each separate report, must be
> studied on its own and determined what value for historical reconstruction
> it presents.
Having any historical value at all starts is a watered down version
of a religious tradition which once held it was all history. Problem, even
though watered down, it is still a religious tradition. As such is has no
standing in these newsgroups.
> There should never be either whosesale acceptance nor wholesale rejection
> of the texts and what they report.
There is no basis other than religious tradition to accept the
stories as anything other than fiction.
> A final point: it is a non-sequitur to go from "the extent of Solomon's
> kingdom as reported can't be" to applying that to the whole question of
> whether there was an historical Israel or at what period of time such a
> group showed up on the scene.
There is no historical Israel to be found any place. There is only
biblical Israel and that is only found as a religious belief in a text held
to have religious significance. What conceivably would be the point in
finding a name resembling Israel attached to the polytheist culture we know
did exist?
=====
You can do better than this if you were to put your mind to it. This
could have been written any time in the last two centuries. It is no more
legitimate an appeal in 2009 than it would have been in 1909. Hardly a word
would need be changed.
You believers have been in constant retreat for two centuries. Not
once has there been a pause in this retreat. Not once has any material
aspect of your favorit anthology been established as fact by archaeology.
What silly hubris leads you believers to think you can continue to
hold back the tide? Why would you imagine your retreat is at an end in 2009?
=====
It is also rather nonsensical for you believers trying to make a
case for an Israel of your imagination when we know the people were
polytheiss.
When it is time to move on the next step is to point out the
criteria of biblical also applies to Judah. And we know no biblical Judah
ever existed because it too was polytheist as was Judea when it appeared in
history. We know Judea was polytheist in New Testament times. We know it was
not just the peasants for the temple of Astarte in Jerusalem.
--
To help mankind a degree in medicine requires great effort, intelligence and
dedication. A degree in divinity requires only dedication.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4184
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Sat Oct 24 00:44:33 EDT 2009
jerry warner
Weland wrote:
> Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
> Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
> Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
>
> The problem that seems to be missed is that there isn't *one* biblical
> Israel, there are many. Just off the top of my head, there's the
> character Israel in the book of Genesis, there's the "Israel" in the
> Exodus story, another Israel in the Wilderness and Conquest narratives
> (2 separate narratives), the Israel of the Deuteronomist, the so-called
> northern kingdom of Israel, the "Israel" in the south kingdom (yes, the
> texts even after the Assyrian conquest call Judah "Israel" at times),
> the Israel of the fifth century BCE, the Israel of the Greco-Roman
> period.....not all are historical, and those that are are not
> necessarily historically presented in the Biblical texts. So which
> biblical Israel is being claimed not to have existed?
Exactly! And that is a point best put to those who
scripted the (Bibles). Did they know, were they
intentionally, scripting a fraud, did they see it as a
fraud, did they know it did not comport with factual
historical reality or were they also fooled and buying into
myths?
At some point somebody decided all the different
Israels represented a cohesive historical continuum,
and that assertion has most definately been peddled
right up to the current day and posters here - Matt
is not one of these, fortunately.
This is simply a search for facts with plausible theory
as a guide. Matt satisfies that requirement, so far as
I am concerned. Matt is hardly alone in his suspicons
and his direction, as Matt has shown. (we already knew
that!).
What David Christensen is doing is a light year away
from what Matt is doing and they will never come to
terms. Matt should simply stop being so defensive!
jerry warner
Tiglath wrote:
> Biblical Israel can also mean in a less specific manner the Jews
> living in the Levant in the time-span of the Old Testament,
what "Jews" !? Just a people perhaps with a name.
jerry warner
Weland wrote:
> Tiglath wrote:
> > Biblical Israel can also mean in a less specific manner the Jews
> > living in the Levant in the time-span of the Old Testament, and to
> > deny their existence would be madness.
>
> Yes, that's what I mean to illustrate and the problem with these blanket
> claims is that they confuse the historical and legendary.
>
and "Jews" is a blanket claim.
Weland
>
> Weland wrote:
>
>
>>Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
>>Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
>>Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
>>
>>The problem that seems to be missed is that there isn't *one* biblical
>>Israel, there are many. Just off the top of my head, there's the
>>character Israel in the book of Genesis, there's the "Israel" in the
>>Exodus story, another Israel in the Wilderness and Conquest narratives
>>(2 separate narratives), the Israel of the Deuteronomist, the so-called
>>northern kingdom of Israel, the "Israel" in the south kingdom (yes, the
>>texts even after the Assyrian conquest call Judah "Israel" at times),
>>the Israel of the fifth century BCE, the Israel of the Greco-Roman
>>period.....not all are historical, and those that are are not
>>necessarily historically presented in the Biblical texts. So which
>>biblical Israel is being claimed not to have existed?
>
>
> Exactly! And that is a point best put to those who
> scripted the (Bibles).
Of course not. The texts later included in the collection we call the
Bible are ancient texts, not a collection by conspiracy.
Did they know, were they
> intentionally, scripting a fraud, did they see it as a
> fraud, did they know it did not comport with factual
> historical reality or were they also fooled and buying into
> myths?
Of course not. They were operating within the intellectual sphere of
the ancient Near East and their literature is paralleled in those
literatures.
> At some point somebody decided all the different
> Israels represented a cohesive historical continuum,
> and that assertion has most definately been peddled
> right up to the current day and posters here - Matt
> is not one of these, fortunately.
Ah, a Giwer sock puppet. I should have known.
>
> This is simply a search for facts with plausible theory
> as a guide. Matt satisfies that requirement, so far as
> I am concerned.
Then, quite apart from anything or any stand on the Bible, you are an
idiot. Giwer doesn't know a historical fact from his toes and taking
anything he says seriously is evidence of not being a clear thinker
yourself. Its fine to question things, it's good to know that the story
of continuity from Adam to the Christian church as a single line of
transmission isn't historically accurate. But to follow Giwer is to
fall into folly.
Matt is hardly alone in his suspicons
> and his direction, as Matt has shown. (we already knew
> that!).
>
> What David Christensen is doing is a light year away
> from what Matt is doing and they will never come to
> terms. Matt should simply stop being so defensive!
Who? Is that the Thiering guy? He too is a nut, just like Giwer. Oh
sure, different kind of nut, but nut nonetheless.
Weland
>
> Tiglath wrote:
>
>
>>Biblical Israel can also mean in a less specific manner the Jews
>>living in the Levant in the time-span of the Old Testament,
>
>
> what "Jews" !? Just a people perhaps with a name.
Except your chum Matt claims that those people didn't exist. In spite of
them being called Israel in ancient texts.
>
>
mof
Yeah, that is actually what Matt is doing, for he has nothing to
defend. His resources are at an end and he knows it. Not being able to
defend one single thought, he jumps to a new thread, thinking he might
be fooling someone.
On the one hand Matt uses material like Josephus at face value, not
even bothering to mention that the extant manuscripts are at least
some 900 years younger than the events. On the other he problematizes
the old testament, even though the situation for it is somewhat
similar in that regard. Matt is having an agenda and only fools fall
for it. Compare it to Tom P.
Tom P, truckdriver or not, has understood that arguments has to be
based on facts. It may of course be discussed what a fact is, and
eventually I think we will come around to such a discussion. Some
here, like Matt, seems to think that sheer denial is the way to go,
but in my opinion it is sheer folly. They end up with arguments like,
"no, this guy just happens to have a similar name to someone that was
beaten by the Xxxians". That whole defence in itself is somewhat
worthless, for the actual result is just that it creates two
characters.
For me this discussion is interesting as a comparison to my interest,
North-Western European dark age history. There are some quite
interesting methodological problems. As a result I have a glass of red
wine and read some of Liverani, for example, mentioned by Dragonblaze
in another thread.
As to Matt... I really don't know what to say. I think I feel sorry
for him, for he is not an unintelligent person, but he is a prisoner
of an ideology. As long as there is life, there is hope, and one day I
think Matt will come to his senses.
Matt Giwer
> Weland wrote:
>> Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
>> Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
>> Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
>> The problem that seems to be missed is that there isn't *one* biblical
>> Israel, there are many. Just off the top of my head, there's the
>> character Israel in the book of Genesis, there's the "Israel" in the
>> Exodus story, another Israel in the Wilderness and Conquest narratives (2
>> separate narratives), the Israel of the Deuteronomist, the so-called
>> northern kingdom of Israel, the "Israel" in the south kingdom (yes, the
>> texts even after the Assyrian conquest call Judah "Israel" at times), the
>> Israel of the fifth century BCE, the Israel of the Greco-Roman
>> period.....not all are historical, and those that are are not necessarily
>> historically presented in the Biblical texts. So which biblical Israel
>> is being claimed not to have existed?
> Exactly! And that is a point best put to those who scripted the (Bibles).
> Did they know, were they intentionally, scripting a fraud, did they see it
> as a fraud, did they know it did not comport with factual historical
> reality or were they also fooled and buying into myths?
Now you are being silly. What in the world would lead you to posit
fraud when in fact stories about gods were created all the time on those
days? It was considered a good thing to do. Why in the world would you
imagine today's silly peasant belief in the god being as they are in the
stories it as having been the way it was 2000 years ago? I find nothing
which supports that idea existed back then.
I can also produce stories from less than a thousand years ago show
Jews continued to make up stories about their male god and that they were
popular. So even if you could possibly find some Greek condemnation of the
idea, I have solid evidence Jews have no problem with making up stories much
more recently. I have posted an example of it here.
> At some point somebody decided all the different Israels represented a
> cohesive historical continuum, and that assertion has most definately been
> peddled right up to the current day and posters here - Matt is not one of
> these, fortunately.
At some point? You know this based upon what evidence? No evidence
at all? Then why do you pontificate upon what you IMAGINE happened?
> This is simply a search for facts with plausible theory as a guide. Matt
> satisfies that requirement, so far as I am concerned. Matt is hardly alone
> in his suspicons and his direction, as Matt has shown. (we already knew
> that!).
> What David Christensen is doing is a light year away from what Matt is
> doing and they will never come to terms. Matt should simply stop being so
> defensive!
You missed Weland's point. I am his target not Capt Crunch.
--
Holocaust denial is not as bad as the Goldstone Report on Gaza.
Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the US, September 2009
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4195
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Sat Oct 24 04:10:14 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
>> Biblical Israel can also mean in a less specific manner the Jews living
>> in the Levant in the time-span of the Old Testament,
> what "Jews" !? Just a people perhaps with a name.
A name that does not appear in common usage as followers of Judaism
rather than a geographic reference until maybe the 6th c. AD and even then
it is questionable. It is not a common usage in all the world today. Nor did
it come into common usage in western Europe until the early-mid 20th c.
Members of the Mosaic confession preceded it. A short name for them at that
time was Zion in England.
People are trying much too much of what is a quite recent common and
imprecise usage.
You might want to read the reviews of "The Invention of the Jewish
People" by Sand (a jewish, Israeli historian) on Amazon. A "jewish people"
is a very recent invention by the Zionists.
--
The professional religious class has more committed atheists
than all the secular humanists combined.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4183
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Sat Oct 24 04:25:16 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
Within the definition of ancient meaning before the fall of the
Roman empire in the west they are in fact ancient. There is no one which can
establish they are older than the 2nd c. BC.
--
When one says a thing is worse than he is also saying it is no better than.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4197
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Sat Oct 24 04:21:46 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
The word Jews derives from Judeans from Roman times. It has no other
origin. It is related to geography just as Christians were called Gallileans
by Julian.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Sat Oct 24 04:18:45 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Yeah, that is actually what Matt is doing, for he has nothing to defend.
> His resources are at an end and he knows it. Not being able to defend one
> single thought, he jumps to a new thread, thinking he might be fooling
> someone.
> On the one hand Matt uses material like Josephus at face value, not even
> bothering to mention that the extant manuscripts are at least some 900
> years younger than the events. On the other he problematizes the old
> testament, even though the situation for it is somewhat similar in that
> regard. Matt is having an agenda and only fools fall for it. Compare it to
> Tom P.
As with all believers you start from the position that religious
traditions are established fact until conclusively shown to the contrary.
In reality religious traditions have no standing at all outside the
appropriate religious community and are not permitted in this newsgroup.
Rejecting religious traditions regarding an anthology of fantasy
fiction is not an agenda. It is an axiom.
Tell me why you consider religious traditions about that anthology
to be worth taking seriously. If you are a rational person you have one or
more reasons. If you have no reasons you are not rational but rather
superstitious.
> Tom P, truckdriver or not, has understood that arguments has to be based
> on facts. It may of course be discussed what a fact is, and eventually I
> think we will come around to such a discussion. Some here, like Matt,
> seems to think that sheer denial is the way to go, but in my opinion it is
> sheer folly. They end up with arguments like, "no, this guy just happens
> to have a similar name to someone that was beaten by the Xxxians". That
> whole defence in itself is somewhat worthless, for the actual result is
> just that it creates two characters.
> For me this discussion is interesting as a comparison to my interest,
> North-Western European dark age history. There are some quite interesting
> methodological problems. As a result I have a glass of red wine and read
> some of Liverani, for example, mentioned by Dragonblaze in another thread.
> As to Matt... I really don't know what to say. I think I feel sorry for
> him, for he is not an unintelligent person, but he is a prisoner of an
> ideology. As long as there is life, there is hope, and one day I think
> Matt will come to his senses.
What is this "sorry" feeling? That I have no use for any religious
tradition? That is a good thing.
What do you have beyond religious traditions regarding the nature of
an anthology of fantasy fiction?
Please tell what you have which is more than that?
--
While it appears theoretically possible to reconcile science and religion
it requires religion to continue to concede territory if it is to happen.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4181
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Sat Oct 24 05:06:21 EDT 2009
Martin Edwards
Come to that there's the British Israel Society. Your point is?
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Martin Edwards
> Tiglath wrote:
>> Biblical Israel can also mean in a less specific manner the Jews
>> living in the Levant in the time-span of the Old Testament, and to
>> deny their existence would be madness.
>
> Yes, that's what I mean to illustrate and the problem with these blanket
> claims is that they confuse the historical and legendary.
>
Weland
>
> For me this discussion is interesting as a comparison to my interest,
> North-Western European dark age history. There are some quite
> interesting methodological problems. As a result I have a glass of red
> wine and read some of Liverani, for example, mentioned by Dragonblaze
> in another thread.
I haven't seen you post to soc.history.medieval...we could use some
whose interests lie in this area and care to post on topic.
Weland
Slow on the uptake are you?
Larry Caldwell
(Weland) says...
> Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
> Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
> Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
Your problem starts when you get to the word "biblical". The Bible is
not history, it is a religious text written by people who believed in
the supernatural. Most of the events in the Bible are pure fantasy.
Where actual historical events intrude into the biblical narrative, they
are distorted to serve a religious agenda.
Historians specializing in the Levant do best when they disregard the
Bible and search for other sources.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Weland
> In article <hbsl7l$c45$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, gi...@poetic.com
> (Weland) says...
>
>
>>Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
>>Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
>>Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
>
>
> Your problem starts when you get to the word "biblical". The Bible is
> not history, it is a religious text written by people who believed in
> the supernatural.
As are the vast majority of texts the come from the ancient world. The
Merneptah Stele is not history either and is a religious text written by
people who believed in the supernatural. That is just one example, and
we could say the same about Assyrian and Persian monuments from which we
derive a great deal of history, and even a great deal of Greco-Roman
history.
> Most of the events in the Bible are pure fantasy.
Apparently you should have read my post a bit more carefully and
completely before responding. There are whole texts in the collection
that record no events whatsoever; those sections that do record events,
each event must be taken and studied on its own---no assumptions. Just
like any other ancient text.
> Where actual historical events intrude into the biblical narrative, they
> are distorted to serve a religious agenda.
As with all other pre-20th century literature....
> Historians specializing in the Levant do best when they disregard the
> Bible and search for other sources.
>
And your publications are? Apparently you've not read much by
historians specializing in the Levant, whether general histories or more
specific monographs. Depending on the subject matter, citing a relevant
biblical text is part and parcel of the process of studying history,
just as citing any other ancient text--it would be remiss of any
historian not to avail him- or herself of all available information.
Martin Edwards
No: your prose is opaque.
Martin Edwards
> In article <hbsl7l$c45$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, gi...@poetic.com
> (Weland) says...
>
>> Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
>> Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
>> Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
>
> Your problem starts when you get to the word "biblical". The Bible is
> not history, it is a religious text written by people who believed in
> the supernatural. Most of the events in the Bible are pure fantasy.
> Where actual historical events intrude into the biblical narrative, they
> are distorted to serve a religious agenda.
>
> Historians specializing in the Levant do best when they disregard the
> Bible and search for other sources.
>
have a proper historian in one part of the programme, who never mentions
Jews or Christians, and a "Biblical scholar" in another part who
explains what he has left out.
Weland
Its been clear to everyone else. What part is it that is giving you
difficulty in comprehension?
Weland
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
>> In article <hbsl7l$c45$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, gi...@poetic.com
>> (Weland) says...
>>
>>> Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
>>> Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description
>>> of Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
>>
>>
>> Your problem starts when you get to the word "biblical". The Bible is
>> not history, it is a religious text written by people who believed in
>> the supernatural. Most of the events in the Bible are pure fantasy.
>> Where actual historical events intrude into the biblical narrative,
>> they are distorted to serve a religious agenda.
>>
>> Historians specializing in the Levant do best when they disregard the
>> Bible and search for other sources.
>
> In general they do. This shows up in History Channel where they may
> have a proper historian in one part of the programme, who never mentions
> Jews or Christians, and a "Biblical scholar" in another part who
> explains what he has left out.
>
Really? You're going to make claims about what professional historians
do by looking at History Channel programs, produced and put together by
non-historians? Always an interesting procedure.
Martin Edwards
How do you know?
Martin Edwards
The /historians/ though, are first rate, and often from Oxford and
Cambridge. Sarcasm is not always the lowest form of wit, but yours is
inept.
Matt Giwer
I really mean it. You did well in clarifying that the united kingdom
of David and Israel did not exist as that has been the only thing under
discussion and all the rest have been at best confusing for those not
familiar with the subject.
> Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
> Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
> Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
You did well.
> The problem that seems to be missed is that there isn't *one* biblical
> Israel, there are many.
True of course but the only one I have discussed in that fantasy
creation united kingdom one and now we all agree that did not exist. You
have done well.
> Just off the top of my head, there's the character Israel in the book of
> Genesis, there's the "Israel" in the Exodus story, another Israel in the
> Wilderness and Conquest narratives (2 separate narratives),
And you do well in highlighting the conquest narrative which is also
without evidence, e.g. the magical conquest of Jericho. Magic does not
happen by definition.
> the Israel of the Deuteronomist,
What might be a Deuteronomist in reality? I am aware of the
speculation that the mythical king Josiah disovered the magically preserved
scroll which is called Deurteronomy. I am also aware as are you this is
nothing but speculation with no evidence to support it. Pious dreaming so to
speak.
> the so-called northern kingdom of Israel,
Which of course you have demonstrated did not exist for which your
post is greatly appreciated.
> the "Israel" in the south kingdom (yes, the texts even after the Assyrian
> conquest call Judah "Israel" at times),
Unsurprisingly the bible stories do not match that wishful pious
thinking either as you have shown.
> the Israel of the fifth century BCE, the Israel of the Greco-Roman
> period.....not all are historical,
Which is also appreciated, that you admit it is all fantasy fiction.
> and those that are are not necessarily historically presented in the
> Biblical texts.
This distinction is also appreciated, that nothing presented is
historical.
> So which biblical Israel is being claimed not to have existed?
All of the above as you so well state.
> Likewise, the Bible, as has been stated before here, is a collection of
> texts spanning a long time of composition, having many different genres,
> by different authors, at different times.
There is nothing in the stories which indicates that. There is
nothing which indicates any author knew of any other book. That makes it
extremely difficult to impossible to connect them. What is you have found
which connects them?
> Some are mythological, some legendary, some poetic, some oracular,
There are no oracles. You can certainly find a better word than
that.
> some historical, at least in so far as the ancient Near East practiced
> what we call history.
But which might those be? Which parts of which might those be? Which
verses do you say are historical compared to verses in the same sentence or
paragraph which are not?
You need to find a better way of saying this else it appears you are
inventing excuses as you go along.
> Each text and what it reports, sometime each separate report, must be
> studied on its own and determined what value for historical reconstruction
> it presents.
When will someone do this? And for what purpose? How will a few
random words among thousands of words of fiction being correct be
distinguished from pure chance?
You have set yourself a great challenge. Please continue your
exposition.
> There should never be either whosesale acceptance nor wholesale rejection
> of the texts and what they report.
There were differ. There are such creatures as wolves. There are
also such creatures as pigs. That does not indicate preference for home
building materials.
> A final point: it is a non-sequitur to go from "the extent of Solomon's
> kingdom as reported can't be" to applying that to the whole question of
> whether there was an historical Israel or at what period of time such a
> group showed up on the scene.
As you note to your great credit, the extent of Solomon's kingdom
can only be applied to the extent of Solomon's kingdom. As that kingdom did
not exist we are now all agreed it never existed.
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Mon Oct 26 06:38:29 EDT 2009
Weland
I polled them. Care to answer the question?
Weland
*SIGH* Ok, let's be clear here. The History Channel programs are put
together by entertainers. They send a set of questions to the
interviewee who prepares answers, and then on camera the producer (off
camera) asks *some* of the questions they sent to the expert, and tape
the expert answering. They then edit all the "experts" together and
snip, and cut, and edit to put together the program.
What does this mean? First, it means that the questions asked are not
from experts in the field, but from entertainers. Second, it means that
in spite of your claim, the guy who didn't refer to the Bible may very
well have referred to the Bible but they snipped it out in favor of
brining in another "expert". Typically when you view these programs
narration is interpreted for the expert commentary, they use 2 or 3
experts commenting on the subtopic and then cut back to the narration.
So basing any conclusions about what professional historians do and do
not do based on their edited, sometimes taken out of context, comments
in a TV program organized and put together by chaps who want to
entertain an audience is not the best way to determine what historians
do and do not do. The best way is to read their published writings and
attend their courses.
ADR
> As you note to your great credit, the extent of Solomon's kingdom
> can only be applied to the extent of Solomon's kingdom. As that kingdom did
> not exist we are now all agreed it never existed.
Your certainty is endearing. In fact, we do not know if Solomon's
kingdom existed or not. It is not really beyond the realm of
possibility that at a time of Egyptian power ebb (the beginning of the
10th century BCE), a "king" in the hills of Canaan was able to assert
wider control of an area that could have included the coastal cities
and the near deserts. Iron Age Megiddo in which excavations are
ongoing for a long period of time may be indicative that such a
possibility is likely. The rather disjointed coastal cities and the
sparsely populated desert areas to the east of the Jordan river could
have easily come under the sway of a warlord based on the hills of
Canaan, especially when the Egyptian armies were nowhere in evidence
and both Assyria and Babylonia had receded. So, from 1050 to 920 BCE,
it is quite possible to have an Israeli dominance in the area. Such
dominance did not have to be within the constructs of a well
administered state (only offerings of tribute by a variety of cities
in the periphery), within a literary environment and within a
civilization that could built imposing temples of stone. Wood,
abundant in the hills at that time was most likely used for
superstructures and temples. This period may have been remembered
fondly later on, when the northern area was captured by Assyria and
the south (Judah) had to suffer many attacks by Egyptians and
Assyrians. Thus, whoever David and Solomon were, they became in local
folklore the "once and future kings", a time fondly remembered. The
story did get taller in the telling. It was recorded with lots of
exaggerations by the priests of Yahweh who put their own spin to it
(the golden age was due to the obedience to the teachings of Yahweh)
although they could not conceal the fact that Solomon erected temples
to other deities (Astarte), a fact recorded in Kings.
It all depends what one calls a "kingdom". Whatever was in place did
not take the form of an organized kingdom. It would have taken no
more than a few raids of the coastal plain for the cities there to
send tribute to "David" or "Solomon" or whoever the warlord or "king"
was. Then, the king could claim a wider realm, not unlike the claims
of the pharaohs.
Matt Giwer
>> How do you know?
You did not poll me therefore you lie.
--
"As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." -- Godwin's Law
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4196
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Mon Oct 26 22:16:51 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 26, 4:00�am, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � As you note to your great credit, the extent of Solomon's kingdom
>> can only be applied to the extent of Solomon's kingdom. As that kingdom
>> did not exist we are now all agreed it never existed.
> Your certainty is endearing.
I am citing the definition under discussion.
> In fact, we do not know if Solomon's kingdom existed or not.
We have the description of its territorial extent, duration and
construction. No kingdom matching the description existed. Therefore it did
not exist.
Why is that so hard for you to follow?
> It is not really beyond the realm of possibility that at a time of
> Egyptian power ebb (the beginning of the 10th century BCE), a "king" in
> the hills of Canaan was able to assert wider control of an area that could
> have included the coastal cities and the near deserts.
While that could be considered a possibility, such a kingdom would
leave physical evidence of its existence. There is no such evidence.
Therefore it did not happen.
I have no idea why would try to hold out hope in this case. It
sounds like an adolescent desperately trying to retain his belief in Santa
Claus.
--
It is an open secret that priests are atheists.
They know they are lying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4188
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Mon Oct 26 22:23:21 EDT 2009
Martin Edwards
I forgot what my question was. It may have been the one about why the
debate about SRR was continuing when there seemed to be no substantial
disagreement.
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Weland wrote:
>
> I really mean it. You did well in clarifying that the united kingdom
> of David and Israel did not exist as that has been the only thing under
> discussion and all the rest have been at best confusing for those not
> familiar with the subject.
>
>> Giwer and company have been crying a long time now about how biblical
>> Israel didn't exist, and very much like to point to the description of
>> Solomon's kingdom and its purported extent.
>
> You did well.
>
>> The problem that seems to be missed is that there isn't *one* biblical
>> Israel, there are many.
>
> True of course but the only one I have discussed in that fantasy
> creation united kingdom one and now we all agree that did not exist. You
> have done well.
>
>> Just off the top of my head, there's the character Israel in the book of
>> Genesis, there's the "Israel" in the Exodus story, another Israel in the
>> Wilderness and Conquest narratives (2 separate narratives),
>
> And you do well in highlighting the conquest narrative which is also
> without evidence, e.g. the magical conquest of Jericho. Magic does not
> happen by definition.
>
frequency but, after decades wandering around in the desert, it is
highly unlikely. Where did the instruments come from anyway?
Matt Giwer
In fact that resonant frequency crap was invented by people with no
concept of this reality.
Trying to make it as simple as possible without a lecture and
references, to set up a resonance a stiff object is required. So it works on
glass, tuning forks and theoretically on suspension bridges. Such things are
stiff and rigid which allows them to vibrate cleanly in the first place.
So a wall of stone blocks is stiff and could start to vibrate but as
soon as there is the slightest slip between stones it is no longer resonant
at that frequency. A different frequency is required. Every time it slips a
little a different frenquency is needed. Any attempt set up a resonance
would be constantly changing and all resonance built up before the slippage
is gone. Clearly not credible.
Look at it from another angle. To make a wall fall over some part of
it presumably less than half way up has to slip far enough that it is no
longer supported by the stones below. A wall thickness is on the order of
feet even at the top and much thicker at the bottom. Any vibration has to be
moving on the order of feet back and forth with NO slippage. Clearly not
credible.
It is even less credible for other reasons involving soil dampening
which would be like touching a tuning fork and expecting it to keep
vibrating.
More technically energy has to go into the wall faster than it is
lost by the wall do to re-radiation and dampening.
On a human level, marching had not yet been invented despite the
word chosen for the translation. If the original word is in fact translated
correctly as marching then we can date it after Rome invented marching and
likely after the authors were exposed to it in the mid 1st c. BC.
--
Between religion and science, only religion can retreat.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4185
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Tue Oct 27 05:12:57 EDT 2009
Weland
Well, dealing with JStupid and Giwer means there is no substantial
disagreement. The issue simply revolves around whether the inscription
really indicates Israel or not. The vast majority of scholarship states
that it does.
Matt Giwer
> Martin Edwards wrote:
...
>> Andrew-Wallace Hadrill, eg, is an expert on Rome. He never mentions
>> Christianity.
> How do you know? Did you see the questions he was asked? Did you see
> what was on the cutting room floor? If the asnwer is negative to either
> of those, then you can only report on the final form of the program you
> saw broadcast, a program put together and edited by entertainers, not
> scholars.
I was particularly impressed by his evidence that Nero was a space
alien but that also remained on the cutting room floor. It is also
unfortunate his discovery of the contents of the Alexandrian library are in
a chamber under the Parthenon also remained on the cutting room floor.
In fact one can imagine millions of things found their way to the
floor making him the most prolific researcher and unsung genius the world
has ever known.
--
To help mankind a degree in medicine requires great effort, intelligence and
dedication. A degree in divinity requires only dedication.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4184
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Tue Oct 27 21:27:37 EDT 2009
Martin Edwards
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Weland wrote:
>
>> Martin Edwards wrote:
> ...
>>> Andrew-Wallace Hadrill, eg, is an expert on Rome. He never mentions
>>> Christianity.
>
>> How do you know? Did you see the questions he was asked? Did you see
>> what was on the cutting room floor? If the asnwer is negative to either
>> of those, then you can only report on the final form of the program you
>> saw broadcast, a program put together and edited by entertainers, not
>> scholars.
>
> I was particularly impressed by his evidence that Nero was a space
> alien but that also remained on the cutting room floor. It is also
> unfortunate his discovery of the contents of the Alexandrian library are in
> a chamber under the Parthenon also remained on the cutting room floor.
>
> In fact one can imagine millions of things found their way to the
> floor making him the most prolific researcher and unsung genius the world
> has ever known.
>
writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the
first century.
Martin Edwards
Matt Giwer
Sorry about that. Some people actually believe it.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Wed Oct 28 05:45:36 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Weland wrote:
>>> Martin Edwards wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Andrew-Wallace Hadrill, eg, is an expert on Rome. He never mentions
>>>> Christianity.
>>> How do you know? Did you see the questions he was asked? Did you see
>>> what was on the cutting room floor? If the asnwer is negative to either
>>> of those, then you can only report on the final form of the program you
>>> saw broadcast, a program put together and edited by entertainers, not
>>> scholars.
>> I was particularly impressed by his evidence that Nero was a space
>> alien but that also remained on the cutting room floor. It is also
>> unfortunate his discovery of the contents of the Alexandrian library are
>> in a chamber under the Parthenon also remained on the cutting room floor.
>> In fact one can imagine millions of things found their way to the
>> floor making him the most prolific researcher and unsung genius the world
>> has ever known.
> Also, I only thought of this after I deleted the post, but if he is
> writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
> Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the first
> century.
Obviously he has no evidence. He is constantly dealing in the "can
you imagine" style of no-nothing responses. A liar for the Lord so to speak.
Consider the belief in fairies. You can conduct dozens of tests
which to your mind will show there are no fairies. To the believer in
fairies he simply simply learns more about the characteristics of fairies
rather than there are none.
The cargo cult believes the Americans steal the cargo their
ancestors meant for them. At one time the leaders of the cargo cult were
brought to the US and shown the factories where the cargo was manufactured
to prove to them the cargo was not from their ancestors. The leaders
concluded the white man had stolen the factories their ancestors had meant
to them. They learned more about their beliefs rather than that their
beliefs were wrong.
It is no different here.
--
What is the difference between testing a god who will not be tested and a
god that is of stone?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4194
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Wed Oct 28 05:36:36 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Also, I only thought of this after I deleted the post, but if he is
> writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
> Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the first
> century.
Also it is not clear when the word Christian came into common use
and referred to the lineal ancestor of what we call Christian that I am
aware. I agree there are one or two things I do not know but I extend that
ignorance to not knowing "what they really mean" when I read something close
or similar but not the same.
As the word christ comes from anointed and the ancient world was
lousy with anointed people I have no clear idea what Anointeds (Christians)
means without explanatory text which makes it clear. I really do not know
"what they really mean" by close statements.
You have probably read a thing or two by Wheless from early last
century. If not do so. If you have long ago it is worth reading again in
terms of all the things he assumed were true we now know are not true.
I find the old influential texts fascinating for this. What little
they managed to salvage from traditional beliefs are based upon things we
know are not true.
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Wed Oct 28 06:46:41 EDT 2009
Martin Edwards
>> Also, I only thought of this after I deleted the post, but if he is
>> writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
>> Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the first
>> century.
Sorry, you've got this all wrong. My point was that he does not mention
Christianity (in the first century). My interlocutor argued that that
he did, but those bits were snipped. I am not sure how he knows this.
Obviously he does mention it when talking about the fourth century
because are bags of evidence. Be not unequally yoked with believers.
Martin Edwards
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Martin Edwards wrote:
>
>> Also, I only thought of this after I deleted the post, but if he is
>> writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
>> Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the first
>> century.
>
> Also it is not clear when the word Christian came into common use
> and referred to the lineal ancestor of what we call Christian that I am
> aware. I agree there are one or two things I do not know but I extend that
> ignorance to not knowing "what they really mean" when I read something
> close
> or similar but not the same.
>
> As the word christ comes from anointed and the ancient world was
> lousy with anointed people I have no clear idea what Anointeds (Christians)
> means without explanatory text which makes it clear. I really do not know
> "what they really mean" by close statements.
>
> You have probably read a thing or two by Wheless from early last
> century. If not do so. If you have long ago it is worth reading again in
> terms of all the things he assumed were true we now know are not true.
>
> I find the old influential texts fascinating for this. What little
> they managed to salvage from traditional beliefs are based upon things we
> know are not true.
>
Christians. That may have been an intelligence cockup, but it is not
impossible. The Serapion at Bergama (Pergamon) was built in the
/second/ century and there was a statue of the god with a pit underneath
for a priest to talk from. Whether the worshippers believed literally
that the god was speaking to them is unclear, but it is no more unlikely
than some dogmas which persist in the Church of Rome.
Matt Giwer
Serapis is one of the themes used to create Jesus. Where Mountain
Man show it was all invented by one person rather the evidence points to it
being an amalgamation of the cults of death/hell/rebirth deities under a
single name and under the banner of incarnate to separate themselves from
the more rational cults who were honest enough to teach they were teaching
an idea not a real person.
--
Hodie quarto Kalendas Octobres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Thu Oct 29 18:51:15 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> Also, I only thought of this after I deleted the post, but if he is
>>> writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
>>> Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the
>>> first century.
> Sorry, you've got this all wrong. My point was that he does not mention
> Christianity (in the first century). My interlocutor argued that that he
> did, but those bits were snipped. I am not sure how he knows this.
> Obviously he does mention it when talking about the fourth century because
> are bags of evidence. Be not unequally yoked with believers.
As with Captain Crunch, most people have a basic inability to come
to terms with the fact all of the NT was knowingly invented people looking
to create and preserve their social station and financial position.
When faced with no foundation they are compelled to invent some
relitious cause unrelated to personal benefit.
--
Holocaust denial is not as bad as the Goldstone Report on Gaza.
Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the US, September 2009
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4195
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Thu Oct 29 18:47:44 EDT 2009
Weland
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>>> Also, I only thought of this after I deleted the post, but if he is
>>> writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
>>> Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the
>>> first
>>> century.
>
>
> Sorry, you've got this all wrong. My point was that he does not mention
> Christianity (in the first century). My interlocutor argued that that
> he did, but those bits were snipped.
Sorry, you've got this all wrong. Your point was that Wallace-Hadrill
as a commentator on a History channel program did not mention
Christianity. You made this point in defense of the notion that
historians of the Levant do not refer to the Bible. I've left aside the
question as to whether Wallace-Hadrill may be called a historian of the
Levant. But what I argued was that basing your conclusion regarding what
a historian does or does not do vis a vis the Bible or Christianity on a
History Channel program where the historian has absolutely NO CONTROL
over the content of the program or what is actually aired is, well,
stupid. I further suggested that the best way to know what a historian
does or does not say is by reading his or her books and articles, where
they do in fact have control over the content and what is made public.
I think it very revealing that you decided to completely misrepresent
what I said: it can only be put down to sheer stupidity of a level only
seen here in recent times in the likes of cinnabon or calumny.
I might note also that you later moved the goalposts by specifying the
first century. I might also wonder which program you are speaking of?
I suspect that it is The Roman Empire in the First Century, in which
Erich Gruen, historian and classicist talks about Christianity, as do
others in episode 3; Wallace-Hadrill only appears in the episode once to
mention Seneca. He doesn't say anything about Seneca's death, or about
Pompei, so maybe he's ignorant of those too or avoiding them? After
all, isn't your original contention an argument based on silence?
> Be not unequally yoked with believers.
Well, after this performance on your part, I'd certainly avoid be yoked
with you due to the inequality of such a partnership. Care to explain
why you misrepresent my views?
Martin Edwards
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Martin Edwards wrote:
>
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>>>> Also, I only thought of this after I deleted the post, but if he is
>>>> writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
>>>> Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the
>>>> first century.
>
>> Sorry, you've got this all wrong. My point was that he does not mention
>> Christianity (in the first century). My interlocutor argued that that he
>> did, but those bits were snipped. I am not sure how he knows this.
>> Obviously he does mention it when talking about the fourth century
>> because
>> are bags of evidence. Be not unequally yoked with believers.
>
> As with Captain Crunch, most people have a basic inability to come
> to terms with the fact all of the NT was knowingly invented people looking
> to create and preserve their social station and financial position.
>
> When faced with no foundation they are compelled to invent some
> relitious cause unrelated to personal benefit.
>
definite knowledge of Christianity, more or less in the form in which it
has come down to us, is an important historical question.
Martin Edwards
word of honour, but then again as an unbeliever I have no honour.
Insulting me will get you nowhere. As I have pointed out to other
posters, downtown adolescents are better at it. What is cinnabon, and
where can I get some?
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Martin Edwards wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>>> Also, I only thought of this after I deleted the post, but if he is
>>>>> writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
>>>>> Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the
>>>>> first century.
>>> Sorry, you've got this all wrong. My point was that he does not mention
>>> Christianity (in the first century). My interlocutor argued that that
>>> he did, but those bits were snipped. I am not sure how he knows this.
>>> Obviously he does mention it when talking about the fourth century
>>> because are bags of evidence. Be not unequally yoked with believers.
>> As with Captain Crunch, most people have a basic inability to come to
>> terms with the fact all of the NT was knowingly invented people looking
>> to create and preserve their social station and financial position.
>> When faced with no foundation they are compelled to invent some
>> relitious cause unrelated to personal benefit.
> That is one way of looking at it. The other is, when we first have
> definite knowledge of Christianity, more or less in the form in which it
> has come down to us, is an important historical question.
That is quite difficult to answer without first describing who us
is. Given the many sects there are many us's.
Even within the same sect there are the simple believers, the
priests, the theologists, the mythifiers, the literalists, the mystics, the
dogmatists, the rule lovers and more. All those aspects always appear in all
sects of all religions. The rule lovers and dogmatists are the only ones who
have a chance if records were kept for their interests.
And when records are kept they are almost always in the dark as to
why. From what little has survived as to the whys it appears the reason is
gossip columnists tended to die off soon after publication. Perhaps their
ink was poison.
--
Which is better? Many gods or one swiss army knife god?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4202
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Fri Oct 30 07:18:23 EDT 2009
Weland
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Martin Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Also, I only thought of this after I deleted the post, but if he is
>>>>> writing about the fourth century, there will obviously be mentions of
>>>>> Christians. I forgot to point out that I was only referring to the
>>>>> first century.
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, you've got this all wrong. My point was that he does not mention
>>> Christianity (in the first century). My interlocutor argued that
>>> that he
>>> did, but those bits were snipped. I am not sure how he knows this.
>>> Obviously he does mention it when talking about the fourth century
>>> because
>>> are bags of evidence. Be not unequally yoked with believers.
>>
>>
>> As with Captain Crunch, most people have a basic inability to come
>> to terms with the fact all of the NT was knowingly invented people
>> looking
>> to create and preserve their social station and financial position.
>>
>> When faced with no foundation they are compelled to invent some
>> relitious cause unrelated to personal benefit.
>>
> That is one way of looking at it. The other is, when we first have
> definite knowledge of Christianity, more or less in the form in which it
> has come down to us, is an important historical question.
>
That's not a question. We know. You don't? Let's reject the NT and
any Christian writings utterly as evidence. Even rejecting that we have
definite knowledge of Christianity in the reign of Nero.
As to the notion of "more or less in the form in which it has come down
to us": no such thing. Christianity, in spite of claims to the
contrary, has always been multiform and continues to change, evolve, and
adapt. Be more specific.
Weland
Your lack of honor has nothing to do with whether you believe,
disbelieve, or like standing on your hands and farting in your own face.
It has to do with a consistent desire to misrepresent my views and to
distort history...even the very books you say you've read.
> Insulting me will get you nowhere.
I see, so aiming a broadside my direction is ok, but let us cry foul
should I take aim at you? Oh, wait, you didn't include me in your
"believers" comment, right? In spite of the fact that you erroneously
call me one and insult me with it consistently? Right?
> As I have pointed out to other
> posters, downtown adolescents are better at it.
Which is why you always complain when I do it to you. Uh huh.
Still noting that I asked you to explain why you distort my views and
you failed to address the question.
ADR
>
> > It is not really beyond the realm of possibility that at a time of
> > Egyptian power ebb (the beginning of the 10th century BCE), a "king" in
> > the hills of Canaan was able to assert wider control of an area that could
> > have included the coastal cities and the near deserts.
>
> While that could be considered a possibility, such a kingdom would
> leave physical evidence of its existence. There is no such evidence.
> Therefore it did not happen.
What would you consider "physical evidence of its existence"? I
actually support the idea that whatever was happening in the hilly
section of Palestine in the beginning of the 10th century BCE can
hardly be called a kingdom that would have left much physical
evidence. It was a sparsely populated place and the cities were
probably no more than mountain strongholds. Temples and other
buildings were most likely constructed with timber. Writing and
literacy were extremely limited. And actually, if you read the OT
(which you have never done), you will find many clues to the nature of
this "kingdom". The OT claims that Solomon's successor had to plead
his case to the northern tribes who actually rejected him!!! Now,
this hardly testifies to the existence of any centralized state. It
does not mean, however, that whoever was ruling from the stronghold of
Jerusalem, could not have obtained tribute from coastal and desert
cities. It was a time in which both the power of Egypt and Assyria
had ebbed and local warlords would have been capable of uniting hill
tribes to rain havoc in the cities of the plains and the coast.
"Physical evidence" is a weird term. I have been to many Mycenaean
sites. All, except from Mycene and Tiryns, are small affairs. The
ruins in Pylos and Orchomenos are very unimpressive. Many others have
disappeared altogether. There is hardly anything left of Mycenaean
Athens or Thebes or Sparta for that matter. And each one of these
kingdoms were far more powerful than the putative ruler of
Jerusalem.
For example, the evidence left behind of predynastic Egypt, which
flourished for centuries with many major centers is minimal. Namur
did not spring out of nothing. There were powerful kingdoms prior to
him that lasted for centuries. However, they built mostly timber
based palaces and their remains need to be reconstructed with a lot of
imagination. Powerful kings such as King Scorpion have left nothing
more than a tandalizing glyph (or not event that). Even much later
states, such as Mittanni, left little or no evidence of their
existence.
The OT is a hieratic text, it is not history. Nobody said it is
history (but you). Its claims should be taken with lots of salt and
information should not be accepted as history unless it is
crossreferenced with other finds. Thus, the OT is on safer ground in
the 9th century and later, as we have lots more information about the
rulers of Judah. They did leave inscriptions and there are many
archaeological finds.
So, the fact that the BIble stories about David and Solomon (mostly
Solomon) appear to be exaggerated is not really too revelatory to
anybody. I wonder why you think that it is. This has been known for
some time and it is just a yawn. You are bringing coal to Newcastle.
So what if the Bible is incorrect about Solomon? Does it mean much?
No. You seem to be like a dog that found an bone and want us all to
know about it. Not very interesting, in fact.
----
You want to make a political statement. Make this statement and do
not try to extent to history and archaeology. It is moronic to try to
shoehorn evidence to fit a political ideology.
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 26, 7:28�pm, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>>> It is not really beyond the realm of possibility that at a time of
>>> Egyptian power ebb (the beginning of the 10th century BCE), a "king" in
>>> the hills of Canaan was able to assert wider control of an area that
>>> could have included the coastal cities and the near deserts.
>> � � � � While that could be considered a possibility, such a kingdom
>> would leave physical evidence of its existence. There is no such
>> evidence. Therefore it did not happen.
> What would you consider "physical evidence of its existence"?
The same dumb question again.
The same as for any other kingdom/empire similar to the description
of Israel in the bible.
There are no exceptions granted because of what people what to
believe.
Fact is everyone here, including you, agrees there was no biblical
Israel and repeating old questions will not change that.
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Sat Oct 31 00:25:54 EDT 2009
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> That's not a question. We know. You don't? Let's
> reject the NT and any Christian writings utterly as
> evidence. Even rejecting that we have definite
> knowledge of Christianity in the reign of Nero.
Hard to say for sure. It seems that Judaism was often
replaced with "Christianity" through the years.
"Christians" being accused of burning Rome, for example.
That has got to be the latter day persecution complex
talking.
Martin Edwards
this was really behind its rise to power.
Martin Edwards
>>>
>> That is one way of looking at it. The other is, when we first have
>> definite knowledge of Christianity, more or less in the form in which
>> it has come down to us, is an important historical question.
>>
>
> That's not a question. We know. You don't? Let's reject the NT and
> any Christian writings utterly as evidence. Even rejecting that we have
> definite knowledge of Christianity in the reign of Nero.
On the other hand, we know nothing of who they were or what they
believed, only that they were notorious for their hatred of humanity.
Nonetheless, the population, which was already taking pleasure in
exhibitions which were to reach new levels of sadism in subsequent
reigns, eventually felt sorry for them.
>
> As to the notion of "more or less in the form in which it has come down
> to us": no such thing. Christianity, in spite of claims to the
> contrary, has always been multiform and continues to change, evolve, and
> adapt. Be more specific.
Martin Edwards
inconveniently, argued that they took the fall because they were guilty.
Martin Edwards
>> Insulting me will get you nowhere.
>
> I see, so aiming a broadside my direction is ok, but let us cry foul
> should I take aim at you? Oh, wait, you didn't include me in your
> "believers" comment, right? In spite of the fact that you erroneously
> call me one and insult me with it consistently? Right?
>
Please point out where I have called you stupid, or even called you
anything as an individual. If you are not, in fact, a Christian, I
humbly apoplogize.
>> As I have pointed out to other posters, downtown adolescents are
>> better at it.
>
> Which is why you always complain when I do it to you. Uh huh.
>
You don't deny then?
>
> Still noting that I asked you to explain why you distort my views and
> you failed to address the question.
If you explain exactly how I distort your views, I will take another
look at it.
Matt Giwer
> Weland wrote:
>>> That is one way of looking at it. The other is, when we first have
>>> definite knowledge of Christianity, more or less in the form in which it
>>> has come down to us, is an important historical question.
>> That's not a question. We know. You don't? Let's reject the NT and any
>> Christian writings utterly as evidence. Even rejecting that we have
>> definite knowledge of Christianity in the reign of Nero.
> On the other hand, we know nothing of who they were or what they believed,
> only that they were notorious for their hatred of humanity. Nonetheless, the
> population, which was already taking pleasure in exhibitions which were to
> reach new levels of sadism in subsequent reigns, eventually felt sorry for
> them.
And on the third claw I am curious where this Weland character gets
his information. I know of no one who takes the claims of Christians and
Nero seriously. It is such a clear fabrication down to the agreed "what it
really means" translations there is hardly a point to reviewing it again.
We do know when there are apparently unmodified mentions of people
who might have been christians that nothing about their behavior identifies
them as christian.
--
It is an open secret that priests are atheists.
They know they are lying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4188
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Sat Oct 31 05:41:53 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
As a hierarchy? Nicaea. I presume you mean more than that.
There are so many organizational models including the ones imagined
from the epistles you can find anything you want as the many sects have
shown.
When did people discover they were in a "church" and couldn't get
out? An even better question.
The problem I have found is nearly everything which has survived
from those times has been heavily modified in the process of surviving. It
is essentially impossible to make sense out of the material. You can see
this by reading up on different people finding different things from the
same material.
There is literally nothing credibly original before maybe the 10th
c. that cannot be suspected of modification. The epistles in the official
canon contain material dealing with controversies which do not appear until
centuries later and would not have appeared had this been the original
teaching.
Those who do not agree with the usual christian views agree on very
little. But the one thing they agree with to some extent is Gnosticism was
the original form of the religion with the carnalizers appearing later and
winning the day with Constantine and by murdering Julian.
The well known fact that forgery, lying for the lord, pious fraud
was not only common but encouraged leaves us with the impossible task of
picking and choosing among things which have survived and even among phrases
within what has survived.
As to what the people saw while sucking hind teat in the hierarchy
depended on the local bishop until maybe three centuries ago in western
Europe.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Sat Oct 31 05:11:49 EDT 2009
Matt Giwer
> JTEM wrote:
>> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>>> That's not a question. We know. You don't? Let's reject the NT and
>>> any Christian writings utterly as evidence. Even rejecting that we have
>>> definite knowledge of Christianity in the reign of Nero.
>> Hard to say for sure. It seems that Judaism was often replaced with
>> "Christianity" through the years.
>> "Christians" being accused of burning Rome, for example. That has got to
>> be the latter day persecution complex talking.
> Actually, no. The BBC a few years ago made a programme which, rather
> inconveniently, argued that they took the fall because they were guilty.
Except that the entire fire and persecution story first appears
centuries after the fact and is not mentioned by people in between who were
whining about persecution. It is hardly difficult to add a few words to
Suetonius when you have control of the copying. And one hardly needs to have
a conspiracy when a copier has no problem correctly an "obvious" ommission
on his part.
--
Hodie pridie Kalendas Octobres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Sat Oct 31 05:49:24 EDT 2009
Weland
> Weland wrote:
>
>>>>
>>> That is one way of looking at it. The other is, when we first have
>>> definite knowledge of Christianity, more or less in the form in which
>>> it has come down to us, is an important historical question.
>>>
>>
>> That's not a question. We know. You don't? Let's reject the NT and
>> any Christian writings utterly as evidence. Even rejecting that we
>> have definite knowledge of Christianity in the reign of Nero.
>
>
> On the other hand, we know nothing of who they were or what they
> believed, only that they were notorious for their hatred of humanity.
Only if we reject their own documents. Otherwise, we have quite
detailed information about what they believed and even that there were
different communities within the movement that believed different
things. Even without that, the first Roman witnesses to Christianity
give us some basic information within the first century CE. In
contrast, there are a number of Greco-Roman cults about which we know
even less.
Weland
The point that you are not particularly honorable? Yes it does.
Distortion of those books claiming that they say what they don't or are
ambivalent in some claim when they aren't are hardly demonstrations that
you've read them, so I have only your word that you have to go on.
>
>>> Insulting me will get you nowhere.
>>
>>
>> I see, so aiming a broadside my direction is ok, but let us cry foul
>> should I take aim at you? Oh, wait, you didn't include me in your
>> "believers" comment, right? In spite of the fact that you erroneously
>> call me one and insult me with it consistently? Right?
>>
> Please point out where I have called you stupid, or even called you
> anything as an individual.
I don't know if you have. If you have alternate explanations as to why
you distort my stated views beyond stupidity (you aren't smart enough to
understand what I said) or intentional distortion, please outline them.
>
>>> As I have pointed out to other posters, downtown adolescents are
>>> better at it.
>>
>>
>> Which is why you always complain when I do it to you. Uh huh.
>>
> You don't deny then?
I don't really care. I just note that my comments seem to have their
desired effect, otherwise there'd be no reason to attempt to downplay them.
>
>>
>> Still noting that I asked you to explain why you distort my views and
>> you failed to address the question.
>
>
> If you explain exactly how I distort your views, I will take another
> look at it.
Just look at this message! Where, for example, did I ever say anything
remotely like Wallace-Hadrill talked about Christianity but it ended up
on the cutting room floor. Please do quote me. Go ahead, we're waiting.
Matt Giwer
> Martin Edwards wrote:
>> Weland wrote:
>>>> That is one way of looking at it. The other is, when we first have
>>>> definite knowledge of Christianity, more or less in the form in which
>>>> it has come down to us, is an important historical question.
>>> That's not a question. We know. You don't? Let's reject the NT and
>>> any Christian writings utterly as evidence. Even rejecting that we have
>>> definite knowledge of Christianity in the reign of Nero.
>> On the other hand, we know nothing of who they were or what they
>> believed, only that they were notorious for their hatred of humanity.
> Only if we reject their own documents.
If we had any unchanged documents and honest translations of what we
do have it might be different.
> Otherwise, we have quite detailed information about what they believed and
> even that there were different communities within the movement that
> believed different things.
From Paul we get the imminent end of the world and return of the
Word. From Peter (I think) we learn agnosticism is widespread in his time, a
time when there were supposedly no sources of information save those who
knew him personally. I can go on but you know what I will address because
you know the excuses given by unthinking believers.
> Even without that, the first Roman witnesses to Christianity give us some
> basic information within the first century CE.
Interestingly there are no Roman witnesses until the 3rd c. Of
course you could name those you think are from the 1st c. just for laughs.
> In contrast, there are a number of Greco-Roman cults about which we know
> even less.
Many of which were included in what was later called Christianity.
--
To help mankind a degree in medicine requires great effort, intelligence and
dedication. A degree in divinity requires only dedication.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4184
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Sun Nov 1 01:42:42 EDT 2009
ADR
> The same dumb question again.
>
> The same as for any other kingdom/empire similar to the description
> of Israel in the bible.
Hmmmm....I brought you several examples of "famed" kingdoms that left
little or no evidence of themselves. Again, you continue to ignore
any evidence you do not like.
>There are no exceptions granted because of what people what to
> believe.
This mostly includes you
>Fact is everyone here, including you, agrees there was no biblical
> Israel and repeating old questions will not change that.
Do not try to change the point of reference. You started with the
proposition that Israel never existed and it was all a made up story.
Now, you are changing your tune. First of all, "Biblical Israel"
covers a lot of time. In fact, it covers almost a period of 1200
years. Which part of this "did not exist"? You try to use a blanket
term for what has been a very narrow discussion. Who do you think you
want to deceive? Me?
ADR
You are such an unbelievable moron, it is just incredible. The
persecution of the Christians is included in histories written by
notable non-Christian historians. For the persecution of the
Christians during the reign of Nero, it would be instructive if you
can read Suetonius: Nero 16.2.45 : "....Punishment was inflicted on
the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous
superstition....." (verbatim quote) -not very friendly to Christians,
but the fact is indeed noted. I would not go to other historians or
bring details of the edict of Milan, etc, etc but I would only
highlight this to show how stupid you are. Do you think that nobody
in this forum has any classical education???? In addition, the
letters of Paul and many of his adherents way precede any of the known
gospels, sometimes by 20 years or so. Why don't you take your venom
and hatred somewhere else?
ADR
> And on the third claw I am curious where this Weland character gets
> his information. I know of no one who takes the claims of Christians and
> Nero seriously. It is such a clear fabrication down to the agreed "what it
> really means" translations there is hardly a point to reviewing it again.
You are so stupid. Weland gets his information regarding Nero and the
Christians from Suetonius and Tacitus, none of them well disposed
towards the Christians. I posted the exact statement from Suetonius,
and I will post the more extensive description of the prosecution of
the Christians by Nero that occurs in Tacitus.
All of which proves what an utter idiot and a moron you are. After
been proven wrong time after time and your arse being whipped, you
come back for more.
Martin Edwards
>> Point, but what I really mean is Christianity as an /organization/, as
>> this was really behind its rise to power.
Yes, I mean much earlier, but how much is precisely the question.
All these points are an argument that what I am looking for is now
undetectable, but I mean to keep it up for a while. I think it is /the/
question about Christian origins.
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 30, 9:29�pm, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � The same dumb question again.
>> The same as for any other kingdom/empire similar to the description of
>> Israel in the bible.
> Hmmmm....I brought you several examples of "famed" kingdoms that left
> little or no evidence of themselves. Again, you continue to ignore any
> evidence you do not like.
Sorry but where did you post evidence of biblical Israel?
As you posted none, exactly what evidence do you claim I am
ignoring? Please be specific in your response as to the evidence of biblical
Israel you claim I am ignoring.
>> There are no exceptions granted because of what people what to believe.
> This mostly includes you
Declining to believe is the opposite of believing.
>> Fact is everyone here, including you, agrees there was no biblical Israel
>> and repeating old questions will not change that.
> Do not try to change the point of reference. You started with the
> proposition that Israel never existed and it was all a made up story. Now,
> you are changing your tune.
If you were to in fact look up what I posted you would find I said
1) There is no physical evidence of biblical Israel.
2) No rational person accepts the existence of a thing without
physical evidence.
> First of all, "Biblical Israel" covers a lot of time.
Whatever it covers is described in the bible.
> In fact, it covers almost a period of 1200 years.
Again I repeat biblical Israel that I have always spoken of it means
the united kingdom of David and Solomon. Why do you keep trying to change it
to something I am not talking about and which I have clarified dozens of
times? [rhetorical] Because it is the only hope you have a weaseling out of
your agreement that that kingdom did not exist.
> Which part of this "did not exist"? You try to use a blanket term for what
> has been a very narrow discussion. Who do you think you want to deceive?
> Me?
I doubt I could deceive you as you appear singularly unable to
remember what is posted. As such you would not remember the deceit either.
In any event, under the definition I have given, you agree it did
not exist. Why continue?
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Sun Nov 1 02:21:33 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 31, 2:48�am, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � And on the third claw I am curious where this Weland character
>> gets his information. I know of no one who takes the claims of Christians
>> and Nero seriously. It is such a clear fabrication down to the agreed
>> "what it really means" translations there is hardly a point to reviewing
>> it again.
> You are so stupid. Weland gets his information regarding Nero and the
> Christians from Suetonius and Tacitus, none of them well disposed towards
> the Christians.
The passage from Tacitus first appears in history in the 15th c. No
one mentions it before then.
Suetonius refers to Chrestos not Christians. Pliny also reports
these Chrestos and has to ask the emperor what to do about them -- an odd
thing to do if there were an imperial precedent. In any event he describes
these Chrestos. He mentions no practice identifiable as Christian and when
he asks them to stop it, they do, which is equally unchristian according to
christian tradition.
You may also say Suetonius and Pliny refer to people who called
themselves annointed, Christos but again their behavior is not identifiable
as Christian.
Then there is Flavius Josephus where almost everyone agrees the
passage is a forgery usually attributed to Eusebius.
As Porky Pig says, That's all Folks!
> I posted the exact statement from Suetonius, and I will post the more
> extensive description of the prosecution of the Christians by Nero that
> occurs in Tacitus.
> All of which proves what an utter idiot and a moron you are. After been
> proven wrong time after time and your arse being whipped, you come back
> for more.
I find it incredible you have never researched those passages
yourself as it is nearly impossible not to come across them without a
discussion of them being forgeries -- interpolations as it is said politely.
Nor is it difficult to find not only the admonishions of the church
fathers in favor of lying for the faith but dozens of epistles and gospels
proving that was the modus operandi of those we suspect of being early
christians -- even though most of them were heretics by later definition.
This is all really elementary material anyone who has any knowledge
of the subject has come across time and again.
Why have not you?
--
If you believe religion to be infallible be thankful your
neighbor is not a man of the cloth.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4189
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Sun Nov 1 02:41:05 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
The curious thing is that this particular story does not appear in
Christian tradition itself. The persecution of Domitian, which does,
was actually persecution of those who did not sacrifice, including many
baksliding pagans. Hadrian, on the other hand, does not seem to have
known exactly who his intended victims were.
Martin Edwards
you are dealing with Americans, you are dealing with Americans, you are
dealing with Americans, you are dealing with Americans, you are dealing
with Americans, you are dealing with Americans, you are dealing with
Americans, you are dealing with Americans, you are dealing with
Americans, you are dealing with Americans, you are dealing with
Americans, you are dealing with Americans, you are dealing with
Americans, you are dealing with Americans, ...........................
Matt Giwer
I have read many people trying to make sense out of what survives
and have seen the same person put it together in several different ways.
Take for example one of Peter's letters where he appears to be
arguing against the Gnostics. What is the point of harping on a real flesh
and blood person? What would anyone expect? But after another idea starts up
then harp on it. Either this is a creation centuries later when there was a
feud with the Gnostics or the Gnostics were around in Peter's time and thus
preceded Peter. Either way it says nothing in favor of Christianity.
Frankly I do not think it is possible to make sense of it all absent
some discovery so fortuitous it in itself would most likely be a forgery.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Sun Nov 1 03:03:07 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
It a was generalization about how such programmes are made, but it was,
by implication, about the example I chose. If at some point the man
said, "At about this time, on a starry, starry night in Judea a baby was
born in a stable to a virgin warmed by the breath of the ox and the ass,
who would found what was to become the religion of untold millions,
indeed unimaginable at the time, ruled by an old German, and a Bavarian
at that, in Roman imperial robes," either it was snipped, or I haven't
seen that programme yet.
ADR
> The passage from Tacitus first appears in history in the 15th c. No
> one mentions it before then.
Yes, yes....put your head in the sand, like the idiot you are. In
fact, history has retained a number of apologies by non-Christians
against Christianity. If there were such gaps, they would have been
easily noted.
> Suetonius refers to Chrestos not Christians.
How stupid are you? Don't you think that I have access to the Latin
original? Are we hitting all the heights of stupidity again? Here is
the statement by Suetonius in Latin: "....afflicti suppliciis
Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae; ...." He
is clearly referring to Christians.
> Pliny also reports
> these Chrestos and has to ask the emperor what to do about them -- an odd
> thing to do if there were an imperial precedent. In any event he describes
> these Chrestos. He mentions no practice identifiable as Christian and when
> he asks them to stop it, they do, which is equally unchristian according to
> christian tradition.
> You may also say Suetonius and Pliny refer to people who called
> themselves annointed, Christos but again their behavior is not identifiable
> as Christian.
Blah, blah, blah.....stupidities, stupidities. "Christos does mean
"anointed" in Greek but not in Latin and it was a translation of the
Hebrew "Messiah" into Greek.. "Christianus" and "Christiani" on the
other hand does not mean "anointed" in either Greek or Latin. It
means " ....of the anointed" or "followers of the anointed".
> Then there is Flavius Josephus where almost everyone agrees the
> passage is a forgery usually attributed to Eusebius.
I see.....Now, having been disabused of the possibility of proving
that the Christians were indeed referred to by ancient historians who
were not Christians, you are on the warpath to declare these mentions
as "forgeries" for no apparent reason. No, there is no credible
evidence that anybody forged anything in these manuscripts. And
assuming the wild theory that somebody forged the statement in
Suetonius, that person called Christianity "mischievous" and did not
devote too much to it.
Don't you think again that you are running out of arguments or even
logic???
Weland
Yes it does. Granted, after Tacitus writes about it, but nonetheless it
is present.
Weland
In short, as usual, you are unable to mount a cogent thought in
response. Reminder: you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are
dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you
are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota,
you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus
Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with
Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing
with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are
dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you
are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota,
you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus
Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with
Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing
with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are
dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you
are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota,
you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus
Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with
Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing
with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are
dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you
are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota,
you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus
Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with
Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing
with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are
dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you
are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota,
you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus
Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with
Martinus Idiota, you are dealing with Martinus Idiota.............
Now how you try and deal with the issues:
Why is it that when you refer to a book or article it often does not say
quite what you claim? (Take the Horrocks example....)
Why do you distort my stated views whether from sheer stupidity (you
aren't smart enough to understand what I said) or intentional
distortion? Why if there is another reason beyond those two you do not
outline as you have been requested?
Where did I ever say anything remotely like Wallace-Hadrill talked about
Christianity but it ended up on the cutting room floor? Please do quote
me. Go ahead, we're waiting.
In spite of these requests, I note you fail to address them.
Weland
Non sequitur. To mention "Christians" or "Christianity" is very far
from mentioning or talking about the birth narrative as historical. I
note a great failure to quote me saying that Wallace-Hadrill did say
something that was left on the cutting room floor, demonstrating clearly
that you deliberately distorted my views the first time, and I note that
you have done so in the paragraph above again. I mean, really, is the
best you can do a program of distortion and straw men? Not exactly
holding the British end there are you Martinus Idiota?
ADR
> > In fact, it covers almost a period of 1200 years.
>
> Again I repeat biblical Israel that I have always spoken of it means
> the united kingdom of David and Solomon. Why do you keep trying to change it
> to something I am not talking about and which I have clarified dozens of
> times? [rhetorical] Because it is the only hope you have a weaseling out of
> your agreement that that kingdom did not exist.
What are you muttering about? When did I or anybody else here claimed
that the kingdom of David and Solomon existed as described in the
Bible? We specifically said that it did not. On the other hand, it
is you who have started claiming that the very notion of Israel was
something that was manufactured in Hellenistic times. I see a
substantial climb down here.
I replied to you that the Bible is not and should not be regarded as a
historical text. Why do you want to frame the discussion in this
manner? Again, evidence for a "unified kingdom" in Israel ****cannot
be of the same caliber as evidence from Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia or
Greece****. By the Bible's assertion (for what this is worth), the
"unity" was illusory and this unified kingdom barely survived for 70
years. On the other hand, the other kingdoms accumulated monuments
over a period of milennia. To even suggest that the period of David
and Solomon have to leave evidence comparable to that of Egypt
although it existed for a very brief period of time is another ploy of
yours. How much evidence has been left but the kingdom of Upper Egypt
that existed for the better part of 500 years??? For that matter,
evidence of the early dynastic period is very limited as well,
although this period lasted the better part of 500 years also. You
are trying to compare this against the putative existence of a kingdom
in the hilly country of Palestine that existed for a mere 70 years and
which, on the Bible's own accounts, had only a single king that built
buildings of any note (which were, most likely, constructed of
timber).
I also told you that the kingdom of Mitanni that covered most of
upper Mesopotamia and Syria for centuries left no discernible
archaeological remains and its history can only be putatively
assembled from Assyrian and Syrian documents and inscriptions. Now,
Mitanni was far more powerful than any kingdom in the hills of Judea
ever hoped to be. But if you are looking for any definitive grand
monuments for this very powerful state, sorry, they are not there. I
wonder why would you demand more of "biblical Israel"????
So, your arguments are full of holes, wide enough for a truck to go
through
> I doubt I could deceive you as you appear singularly unable to
> remember what is posted. As such you would not remember the deceit either.
>
> In any event, under the definition I have given, you agree it did
> not exist. Why continue?
I did not say that it did not exist. I am saying that the
archaeological evidence for its existence is lacking. There is a big
difference there. And the archaeological evidence may never be able
to define it because (a) it lasted for a very brief period of time (b)
it was a period of retrenchment of major states with influence in the
area, so diplomatic activity was minor if any; (c) it did not appear
to have been a literary period with a wealth of inscriptions and (d)
it did not have the skills and the manpower to erect stone buildings
of any note; most buildings were probably built of perishable
material. Given these, the presence of any overlord ruling the area
from Jerusalem in the middle part of the 10th century BCE and
collecting tribute from coastal states may be well beyond archaeology
to establish. We have recovered far less for far more powerful kings
of the NeoHittite empire. Why would you demand more in this case?
In the case of David and Solomon, the Bible should be taken as nothing
more than a folk tale that may contain some historical elements but
little that has been verified or can be verified by archaeology. Of
course, this may change by a discovery tomorrow, but for the time
being, one should be able to assess the information on the basis of
the sources.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Christians" being accused of burning Rome, for example.
> > That has got to be the latter day persecution complex
> > talking.
>
> You are such an
You are completely unhinged. You cling to nonsense despite
all logic and in the absence of all evidence.
> The persecution of the Christians is included in histories
> written by notable non-Christian historians.
"Attributed to."
There is a difference, mental case.
> For the persecution of the
> Christians during the reign of Nero, it would be instructive if you
> can read Suetonius: Nero 16.2.45
Assuming Suetunonius was real, he wouldn't have been
born until after the fact. However, this is not to say that
we don;t have reason to doubt "Him." We do. He attributes
the expulsion of Jews from Rome to Claudius while other
sources name Tiberius, and he (but not those other
sources) blames the followers of the (Greek, not Hebrew
or Aramaic) "Christus" for this.
Besides, what are you thinking is the oldest known copy of
this "Suetonius," and how are you ruling out the rather obvious
(not to mention strong) possibility of flourishments from overly
zealous "Christians" the way they clearly did with Josephus?
Damn, you bible thumpers will cling to ANYTHING...
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Weland gets his information regarding Nero and the
> Christians from Suetonius and Tacitus,
I've already dealt with the stupidity behind your Suetonius
claim, and as for Tacitus:
: The oldest manuscript of "Annals 1-6" is in the historic
: library of Lorenzo Medici ("The Magnificent"), and hence
: is known as the Codex Mediceus. It has been dated
: from 850AD, and stylistic cues point to the German
: abbey of Fulda. The source manuscript for all extant
: copies of "Annals 11-16," also from the same
: collection (Mediceus II) was written between 1038 and
: 1055 at the mountaintop monastery of Monte Cassino
: (destroyed in WWII).
So what you're saying is that something written from
850 to 1055 AD (in a total absence of our concept of
"History," and during a period renowned for it's forgeries)
proves what happened in, oh, 64 AD.
That's not an argument it's a plea for help.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>
> > Suetonius refers to Chrestos not Christians.
>
> How stupid are you? Don't you think that I have access
> to the Latin original?
Oh dear. You honestly think there's an "Original" copy of
Suetonius in existence?
Damn, you are one enormous fool!
The oldest known copy of works attributed to Suetonius are
dated to the 10th century AD!
> Are we hitting all the heights of stupidity again?
Does the word "Duh" mean anything to you?
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have been to many Mycenaean sites. All, except from
> Mycene and Tiryns, are small affairs. The ruins in Pylos
> and Orchomenos are very unimpressive.
So you're testifying to the fact that there is indeed evidence.
> There is hardly anything left of Mycenaean Athens or Thebes
> or Sparta for that matter.
"Hardly Anything" > "Nothing"
Again, you are testifying to the fact that there is something.
> For example, the evidence left behind of predynastic Egypt,
> which flourished for centuries with many major centers is
> minimal.
Again, you yourself testifying to the fact that there is SOMETHING,
despite the far greater number of centuries, and the fact that the
greatest empire of the ancient world existed on top of it for
thousands of years.
Contrast this to your "Israel" for which ZERO exists. Nothing.
Nadda. Not one iota.
See the issue now, retard?
as __Little__ as may remain of real people from more distant
periods, there is still SOMETHING, but there is NOTHING of
your "Israel."
You're welcome, though we all know your "Issues" won't allow
you to accept any of this.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hmmmm....I brought you several examples of "famed"
> kingdoms that left little or no evidence of themselves.
You mentioned the Mycenaeans who left oodles of physical
evidence -- enough to fill entire museums -- and then you
compared your Israel to "The Huns," wrongly claiming that
the huns left no archaeology behind.
You're either a shameless liar or severely retarded, but let's
have some fun here. The Huns were certainly a mysterious
group (if, indeed, a single group at all) but there's one thing
that is no mystery: When they arrived in Europe.
So, if you're going to insist that your imaginary "Israel" is
akin to the Huns then, just as history can do with the Huns,
tell us when, specifically, they arrived.
That's the first part.
The second part is for you to identify this imaginary "Gap"
within the archaeological record, the one in which your
Israel fits ever so snugly. Because I myself am not aware
of any such "Gap," any missing archaeological strata
in which this Israel belongs.
As a "Life Line" you may ask one of your other personalities
for help, or even just take your meds.
Ready.... set... GO!
Tiglath
> ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "Christians" being accused of burning Rome, for example.
> > > That has got to be the latter day persecution complex
> > > talking.
>
> > You are such an
>
> You are completely unhinged. You cling to nonsense despite
> all logic and in the absence of all evidence.
>
> > The persecution of the Christians is included in histories
> > written by notable non-Christian historians.
>
> "Attributed to."
>
> There is a difference, mental case.
>
> > For the persecution of the
> > Christians during the reign of Nero, it would be instructive if you
> > can read Suetonius: Nero 16.2.45
>
> Assuming Suetunonius was real,
JTEM is about to claim Suetonius was a sock-puppet, just wait.
> he wouldn't have been
> born until after the fact.
And?
Were you not born after the WWII and seem quite happy pontificating on
what the Nazis did?
Must you really be such an idiot in every post you write?
>
> Besides, what are you thinking is the oldest known copy of
> this "Suetonius," and how are you ruling out the rather obvious
> (not to mention strong) possibility of flourishments from overly
> zealous "Christians" the way they clearly did with Josephus?
>
How inane. An interpolation would not use the ambiguous phrase
'impulsore Chresto', but would mention the Christians proper.
> Damn, you bible thumpers will cling to ANYTHING...
Calling anyone who disagrees with you bible-thumper reveals the
infantilism that pervades every thought you strain to produce.
Tiglath
> On Oct 30, 11:51 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> > > That's not a question. We know. You don't? Let's
> > > reject the NT and any Christian writings utterly as
> > > evidence. Even rejecting that we have definite
> > > knowledge of Christianity in the reign of Nero.
>
> > Hard to say for sure. It seems that Judaism was often
> > replaced with "Christianity" through the years.
>
> > "Christians" being accused of burning Rome, for example.
> > That has got to be the latter day persecution complex
> > talking.
>
> You are such an unbelievable moron, it is just incredible.
Believe it.
Tiglath
The Annals a forgery?
JTEM does not realize that all of ancient history we owe to pious
monks and scribes that labored burning the midnight oil copying from
perennial papyri to durable parchment, and while some interpolations
have occurred, most are easy to spot, and that by an large these men
did us a priceless service by preserving the history that allows us to
know our heritage so far back.
JTEM seems to think that historical narratives are all sole sources
that cannot be cross checked with other works, and is obviously
oblivious that wholesale falsifications, as those he so "astutely"
suspects in Tacitus Annals, never stand expert scrutiny.
JTEM's deep ignorance, gets deeper and deeper.
He is a veritable Mariana Trench of Ignorance, that goober.
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 31, 11:57�pm, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � The passage from Tacitus first appears in history in the 15th c.
>> No one mentions it before then.
> Yes, yes....put your head in the sand, like the idiot you are.
The time it appears in history is what it is. Nothing can change
that.
> In fact, history has retained a number of apologies by non-Christians
> against Christianity. If there were such gaps, they would have been easily
> noted.
You first one failed so you are free to cite those without blame.
Please do so.
>> � � � � Suetonius refers to Chrestos not Christians.
> How stupid are you? Don't you think that I have access to the Latin
> original? Are we hitting all the heights of stupidity again? Here is the
> statement by Suetonius in Latin: "....afflicti suppliciis Christiani,
> genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae; ...." He is clearly
> referring to Christians.
That is not in my latin. Perhaps there is an error.
>> Pliny also reports these Chrestos and has to ask the emperor what to do
>> about them -- an odd thing to do if there were an imperial precedent. In
>> any event he describes these Chrestos. He mentions no practice
>> identifiable as Christian and when he asks them to stop it, they do,
>> which is equally unchristian according to christian tradition.
>> You may also say Suetonius and Pliny refer to people who called
>> themselves annointed, Christos but again their behavior is not
>> identifiable as Christian.
> Blah, blah, blah.....stupidities, stupidities. "Christos does mean
> "anointed" in Greek but not in Latin and it was a translation of the
> Hebrew "Messiah" into Greek.. "Christianus" and "Christiani" on the other
> hand does not mean "anointed" in either Greek or Latin. It means " ....of
> the anointed" or "followers of the anointed".
There are many people who keep disagreeing with the claims of you
believers and they all tell the same story.
Whoever they are talking about do not identify any behavior which is
identifiable as christian.
>> Then there is Flavius Josephus where almost everyone agrees the
>> passage is a forgery usually attributed to Eusebius.
> I see.....Now, having been disabused of the possibility of proving that
> the Christians were indeed referred to by ancient historians who were not
> Christians, you are on the warpath to declare these mentions as
> "forgeries" for no apparent reason. No, there is no credible evidence that
> anybody forged anything in these manuscripts. And assuming the wild theory
> that somebody forged the statement in Suetonius, that person called
> Christianity "mischievous" and did not devote too much to it.
> Don't you think again that you are running out of arguments or even
> logic???
I reviewed the known citations. Even if Pliny did in fact mean
Christians he recites no nothing that would relate them to any known
christian practice even if the "last supper" were the last breakfast.
--
What is the point of worshiping a god that cannot be seen when its
performance is no better than a statue of Apollo?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4193
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Sun Nov 1 23:48:49 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Oct 31, 11:33�pm, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>
>>> In fact, it covers almost a period of 1200 years.
>>
>> � � � � Again I repeat biblical Israel that I have always spoken of it
>> means the united kingdom of David and Solomon. Why do you keep trying to
>> change it to something I am not talking about and which I have clarified
>> dozens of times? [rhetorical] Because it is the only hope you have a
>> weaseling out of your agreement that that kingdom did not exist.
>
> What are you muttering about? When did I or anybody else here claimed
> that the kingdom of David and Solomon existed as described in the Bible?
As I said, you all agree it did not exist. So why do you keep
posting about what you agree never existed? Why not just move on to see how
zero the evidence for Judah/Judea before the Romans?
--
It is an open secret that priests are atheists.
They know they are lying.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4188
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Sun Nov 1 23:56:50 EST 2009
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > : The oldest manuscript of "Annals 1-6" is in the historic
> > : library of Lorenzo Medici ("The Magnificent"), and hence
> > : is known as the Codex Mediceus. It has been dated
> > : from 850AD, and stylistic cues point to the German
> > : abbey of Fulda. The source manuscript for all extant
> > : copies of "Annals 11-16," also from the same
> > : collection (Mediceus II) was written between 1038 and
> > : 1055 at the mountaintop monastery of Monte Cassino
> > : (destroyed in WWII).
>
> > So what you're saying is that something written from
> > 850 to 1055 AD (in a total absence of our concept of
> > "History," and during a period renowned for it's forgeries)
> > proves what happened in, oh, 64 AD.
>
> > That's not an argument it's a plea for help.
>
> The Annals a forgery?
We can't prove a negative, so all we can say for certain
is that Tacitus is inadmissible, certainly on his own.
This is a basic rule of evidence.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM is about to claim Suetonius was a
> sock-puppet, just wait.
The oldest work attributed to Suetonius dates to
the 10th century. If you want to pretend I'm wrong,
fine, post the cite to an older work.
Then again, a parasite who would feed off the
suffering of others, as you do with Holocaust
survivors, doesn't have the integrity to face
his mistakes...
Weland
Re: Chresto, we know from inscriptional evidence that medial /i/ and /e/
were being interchanged. The evidence for this is much stronger in the
second and third centuries than for the first, but it would explain
Suetonius' "Chrestos" rather than "Christos".
Weland
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>: The oldest manuscript of "Annals 1-6" is in the historic
>>>: library of Lorenzo Medici ("The Magnificent"), and hence
>>>: is known as the Codex Mediceus. It has been dated
>>>: from 850AD, and stylistic cues point to the German
>>>: abbey of Fulda. The source manuscript for all extant
>>>: copies of "Annals 11-16," also from the same
>>>: collection (Mediceus II) was written between 1038 and
>>>: 1055 at the mountaintop monastery of Monte Cassino
>>>: (destroyed in WWII).
>>
>>>So what you're saying is that something written from
>>>850 to 1055 AD (in a total absence of our concept of
>>>"History," and during a period renowned for it's forgeries)
>>>proves what happened in, oh, 64 AD.
>>
>>>That's not an argument it's a plea for help.
>>
>>The Annals a forgery?
>
>
> We can't prove a negative,
Showing that the Annals 1-6 is a forgery isn't proving a negative. It's
called evidence.
so all we can say for certain
> is that Tacitus is inadmissible, certainly on his own.
Convenient dismissal is not evidence.
>
> This is a basic rule of evidence.
As usual, you've not yet made the junior debate club proud.