Eilat Mazar pissing on history (video included)

[JTEM]

: "We saw the large walls of some structure, but they
: were so large that I said, 'Wow, okay, forget about
: King David's Palace -- we are talking about a
: fortress here," she continued.
:
: "We realized that this structure, as monumental and
: impressive as it is, is the first structure ever built
: on that spot," she continued. "So the question
: [was] who built this structure and what was this
: structure built for?"
:
: Mazar soon found her answer.
:
: "We've got a marvelous, marvelous historical source,
: which is called the Bible," she said.

http://tiny.cc/egtjyw


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

This is everywhere. In a programme I saw the other night, the presenter
referred to Abraham's sacrifice and Solomon's temple (mythology) and
then Herod's temple (history) as if they were all the second. People
who grow up in a Christian culture which has mass media are often unable
to distinguish the two, even if they are no longer observant Christians.
Way back in 1955, I knew the Cisco Kid was fiction, but Jesus was
presented as fact. I was well into middle age before I developed powers
of discrimnation.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> This is everywhere.  In a programme I saw the other night, the presenter
> referred to Abraham's sacrifice and Solomon's temple (mythology) and
> then Herod's temple (history) as if they were all the second.  People
> who grow up in a Christian culture which has mass media are often unable
> to distinguish the two, even if they are no longer observant Christians.
>   Way back in 1955, I knew the Cisco Kid was fiction, but Jesus was
> presented as fact.  I was well into middle age before I developed powers
> of discrimnation.

What astounds me is the fact that they are
surprised but what they found -- they didn't
expect it, it's not what the bible told them
to expect -- but then they turn right around
and claim that the bible explains it.

...but is the bible DID explain it, why
on earth were they surprised? I mean, if they
found what the bible describes then they should
have found exactly what they expected to find.

...only they didn't.

Thus, no matter what they find it always "Proves"
the bible. They could have dug up a UFO, the
mummified remains of a Sasquatch and an old
McDonalds commemorative drink cup (Collect all four!)
and it would *Still* prove the bible 3,000% accurate.

...and they say so. They tell you this, including
in the story I linked to. No, not using those words,
but by example, by their actions. Again.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Matt Giwer]

In retrospect the worst mistake the Palestinians ever made was to
invent Judaism.

--
Hodie Kalendis Maiis MMXIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
Wed, May 01, 2013 5:47:27 PM

[Matt Giwer]

Been here done this. This is the crook Mazar who fronts for the real
estate scam Elad.

She keeps finding "jewish" things to excuse confiscating the property
of non-Jews so as to preserve it with luxury high rises, an underground
parking garage and a shopping mall.

[Martin Edwards]

They paved Paradise and put up a parking lot.

[Martin Edwards]

They were not Palestinians until the reign of Hadrian. Though I swing
with the mythicist side, there clearly was a Judaean religion at the
turn of the era, and there are plenty of sources for it. The Second
Temple and its cult existed. Now this is an important distinction: the
First Temple and Solomon remain in the realm of mythology, though as a
historian I will always consider new evidence as and if it comes up. As
John Sladek pointed out, the difficulty is that the two sides will never
agree on the nature of evidence, thus any evidence from a given period
is confirmation of Judaeo-Christian mythology from that period.

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Matt Giwer wrote:

> They were not Palestinians until the reign of Hadrian.  Though I swing
> with the mythicist side, there clearly was a Judaean religion at the
> turn of the era, and there are plenty of sources for it.  The Second
> Temple and its cult existed.  Now this is an important distinction: the
> First Temple and Solomon remain in the realm of mythology,

The first temple as discussed in the bible, yes. And in order to
create that myth the age of the Samaritan temple had to be
moved forward by well over a century...

Heck, tradition even claims that the Samaritan temple was a copy!
It looked exactly like what the first temple was supposed to look
like because it was a copy!

It was the temple. Period.

> though as a
> historian I will always consider new evidence as and if it comes up.

Problem is, all the evidence is so thoroughly soiled...

> As
> John Sladek pointed out, the difficulty is that the two sides will never
> agree on the nature of evidence, thus any evidence from a given period
> is confirmation of Judaeo-Christian mythology from that period.

There's a sliding scale. The rules that apply to secular,
insignificant
finds go out the window the moment anyone claims to have bible
"Evidence." *Way* too much of any debate is wasted on matters that
should by rights never even be introduced.

-- --

http://jtem.tumble.com

[Matt Giwer]

You are claiming Herodotus was a prophet and could see seven centuries
into the future and use their future name. Is that not a claim far
beyond parting the Red Sea?

> Though I swing
> with the mythicist side, there clearly was a Judaean religion at the
> turn of the era, and there are plenty of sources for it.

But no evidence for its existence prior to the 1st c. BC when
Palestinians had been around for at least four centuries.

> The Second
> Temple and its cult existed. Now this is an important distinction: the
> First Temple and Solomon remain in the realm of mythology, though as a
> historian I will always consider new evidence as and if it comes up. As
> John Sladek pointed out, the difficulty is that the two sides will never
> agree on the nature of evidence, thus any evidence from a given period
> is confirmation of Judaeo-Christian mythology from that period.

For years now I have been posting on Herodotus discussing the
Palestinians by name and you have not objected before this. What caused
the change?

--
The worst mistake Palestinians ever made
was inventing Judaism.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4430

[Martin Edwards]

Peccavi: I had simply forgotten. I stand by the rest of it though.

[Matt Giwer]

The only rest I see is the Judean Yahweh cult was around at the turn of
the whatever. I agreed that it appeared in history in the 1st c. BC. If
we credit Josephus and 1&2 Maccabes it was created in the mid 2nd
century BC by Palestinians. And that leaves us with my sig.

I doubt you have read my website material but the hardest thing has
been to find terminology divorced from two millennia of Septuagint
exegesis. With the observation it is a Palestinian invention it
addresses every believer position except those who are still in the
Moses, Exodus and Joshua invasion and conquest mode.

[Martin Edwards]

The Jeremiah writings, which purport to be much older, attack the temple
cult. It is a paradox that while, as far as we know, Palestine was in a
state of constant turmoil until it was taken over by the Alexander
successors, strikingly modern material about an end to war and so on
appears quite early. Then again perhaps it wasn't really early.
There'll be peace in the valley for me some day.................

[Matt Giwer]

We only know when Jeremiah appeared in history. There is no evidence
there was any prior temple cult.

Another thing Whitelam makes a point of, see my post 'The religion of
the bible arkies' is that they are constantly INVENTING things about
Palestine for which their is no evidence. The idea of "constant turmoil"
is without evidence. It is an invention of the bible believers as a
contrast to their imagined Israelites about whom they also invent things
without evidence.

As you note the things said about the time are "strikingly modern"
which should be the biggest hint of all that it is a modern invention.
Anachronisms are not permitted. Anything written must be in the context
of the time it is written else we are back to prophecy.

As to being weary of war it is difficult to imagine a time in history
when that thought was not appropriate.

[Martin Edwards]

I've just started Whitelam: give me a few days.