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

[Poetic Justice]

Martin Edwards wrote;

>Way back in 1955, I knew the Cisco Kid
>was fiction,

Then you would have been too old to have had the 1959 'Superman can't
shoot himself because bullets just bounce off him' debate we had as 5yr
olds:-).

>but Jesus was presented as fact.
>I was well into middle age before I
>developed powers of discrimnation.

Or did you just choose discriminate against a religion not based on
facts but a personal agenda? (I'm an Atheist)

I know it's wiki but he/she does provide footnotes and referrences for
that statement.

So my question is a simple 'Yes' or 'No';
Do you believe that the statement below is true among modern scholars
that study that period?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

"Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the hypothesis that a
historical Jesus figure never existed is supported only by a very small
minority of modern scholars.

Bart Ehrman has stated that now virtually all scholars of antiquity
agree that Jesus existed, and Robert M. Price agrees that this denial
perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.

Myth theorist G. A. Wells has also softened his stance on the
non-existence issue.

Van Voorst and separately Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and
classical historians now regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as
effectively refuted."

[JTEM]

Poetic Justice wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
>
> "Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the hypothesis that a
> historical Jesus figure never existed is supported only by a very small
> minority of modern scholars.

This is a fallacious argument. You know that, right?

Basically it's arguing that reality is decided by way
of a popularity contest. We can all think of many
historical examples this disprove this fallacy -- beginning
with a flat earth.

The fact is that the "Evidence" supporting an historical
Jesus is highly problematic, and although the mythical
Jesus hypothesis is weak, it does explain the evidence...
which is the purpose of a theory.

I mean, that is what a "Theory" does in science -- it
explains the evidence. Contrary to usenet idiocy, a
"Theory" requires no proof nor can it be proven, the best
you can do is propose a test which, of failed, would
DISPROVE the theory...

> Bart Ehrman has stated that now virtually all scholars of antiquity
> agree that Jesus existed,

Useless. Utterly useless. You can't get more sophomoric
than such an argument...



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Poetic Justice]

>"Among the variants of the Jesus myth
>theory, the hypothesis that a historical
>Jesus figure never existed is supported
>only by a very small minority of modern
>scholars.

JTEM wrote;

>This is a fallacious argument. You know
>that, right?

I see a wiki author making a claim that he then goes on to back-up.

If true and the vast majority of modern scholars in that field believe
that to be true where is the "fallacious argument"?

>Basically it's arguing that reality is
>decided by way of a popularity contest.

So if the vast majority of scientists believe the 'Big Bang' theory they
are deciding this "by way of a popularity contest" also?

>We can all think of many historical
>examples this disprove this fallacy --
>beginning with a flat earth.

So if a vast majority of modern scholars or scientists in a certain
field come to the overwhelming conclusion that is 'X', they decided that
based on a 'popularity-like contest reality but that they are wrong
because 'once upon a time' humans believed the World was flat?

>[Bart Ehrman has stated that now virtually

>all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
>existed,]

>Useless. Utterly useless. You can't get
>more sophomoric than such an
>argument...

That is a 'statement' based on I assume years of interaction with his
peers, hearing their opinions, reading their research, etc yet you see
it as an "argument"?

So bottomline will you answer the question?
I got my money on you will not.

>So my question is a simple 'Yes' or 'No';

>Do you believe that the statement below
>is true among modern scholars that study
>that period?

"Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the hypothesis that a
historical Jesus figure never existed is supported only by a very small
minority of modern scholars.

Bart Ehrman has stated that now virtually all scholars of antiquity

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> >"Among the variants of the Jesus myth
> >theory, the hypothesis that a historical
> >Jesus figure never existed is supported
> >only by a very small minority of modern
> >scholars.
>
> JTEM wrote;
>
> >This is a fallacious argument. You know
> >that, right?
>
> I see a wiki author making a claim that he then goes on to back-up.

It's a fallacious argument. Seriously, you don't "Back up" a
fallacious argument, you continue along an
erroneous path.

> If true and the vast majority of modern scholars in that field believe
> that to be true where is the "fallacious argument"?

You're kidding.

PLEASE tell me that you're kidding...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

Price has never retracted though, simply admitted that he is in the
minority. He does admit that some of the Jesus tropes may be based on
someone but, here's the nub, they could not all be based on the same person.

[Martin Edwards]

Classical hstorians should know better. There is no evidence for more
than the fact that a group called Christians came into being at some
point. Detective Munch moved from Baltimore to New York, and the
backstory in L & O is that he was originally from New York. However,
there is a HLOS episode about his teenage years in Baltimore. At least
cop show fans do not barbecue each other over the issue.

[Poetic Justice]

JTEM wrote;

>It's a fallacious argument. Seriously, you
>don't "Back up" a fallacious argument, you
>continue along an erroneous path.

>[Me; If true and the vast majority of

>modern scholars in that field believe that
>to be true where is the "fallacious
>argument"?]

>You're kidding.
>PLEASE tell me that you're kidding...

--------------------------------------------

>"Among the variants of the Jesus myth
>theory, the hypothesis that a historical
>Jesus figure never existed is supported
>only by a very small minority of modern
>scholars.

>"Among the variants of the Jesus myth
>theory,"

These are the 'BLUES' they do not believe in an "Historical Jesus" so
non-existance as a living and breathing person, they have multiple
theories to support their different claims (Jesus Myths).

>"the hypothesis that a historical
>Jesus figure"

These are the 'REDS' they believe there was a living and breathing Jesus
so he existed (Historical Jesus).

So a group of scholars of antiquity have 2 choices, either he existed or
he didn't as an *actual* living and breathing person.

So this is a fact.

"the hypothesis that a historical
Jesus figure never existed is supported
only by a very small minority of modern
scholars."

Lets also say this is a fact as there is no reason to dispute it nor has
anyone disputed the fact that the 'Blues' are a "very small minority" of
the overall group of scholars.

Now let's say at the 'International Convention of Scholars of Antiquity'
with 100's attending at the door they are given 2 choices a 'Red' shirt
or a 'Blue' shirt.

As we look out over the convention floor we see that the vast majority
have chosen a 'Red' shirt and a very small minority has chosen a 'Blue'
shirt.

And we claim based on the fact of what we are actually seeing is that a
very small minority of scholars are wearing 'Blue shirts'.

What part is a fallacy?

And how is that a fallacious argument?

And you as you have stated in the past are in the 'Jesus Myths' camp, so
a 'Blue'.

And I have stated in the past that I am in the 'Historical Jesus' camp,
so a 'Red'.

You as a 'Blue' are a very small minority among the beliefs/opinions of
ancient scholars of antiquity.

Where am I going wrong here?

[Poetic Justice]

>So my question is a simple 'Yes' or 'No';
>Do you believe that the statement below
>is true among modern scholars
>that study that period?

>"Among the variants of the Jesus myth
>theory, the hypothesis that a historical
>Jesus figure never existed is supported
>only by a very small minority of modern
>scholars.

Martin Edwards wrote;

>Price has never retracted though,

No one has claimed he ever did?

>...simply admitted that he is in the
>minority.

That's obvious in the quoted text which is why the wiki author used him
to help back-up his "very small minority" claim.

>"...Robert M. Price agrees that this denial

>perspective runs against the views of the
>majority of scholars."

>He does admit that some of the Jesus
>tropes may be based on someone but,
>here's the nub, they could not all be based
>on the same person.

So a 'Mythical Jesus' and not an actual living and breathing 'Historical
Jesus'.

Obama in one of his autobio books writes about his girlfriend, after
reporters failed to find this actual living and breathing woman he
finally admitted that she didn't exist but was a fictional (mythical)
person make-up from actual living and breathing past girlfriends and I
believe girls he was just friends with.

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:
> Now let's say at the 'International Convention of Scholars of Antiquity'
> with 100's attending at the door they are given 2 choices a 'Red' shirt
> or a 'Blue' shirt.
>
> As we look out over the convention floor we see that the vast majority
> have chosen a 'Red' shirt and a very small minority has chosen a 'Blue'
> shirt.
>
> And we claim based on the fact of what we are actually seeing is that a
> very small minority of scholars are wearing 'Blue shirts'.
>
> What part is a fallacy?

Claiming that it has any bearing on the question.

It's not an argument. Period. Hence, it's "Fallacious." You're not
arguing
a gas, you're claiming that one position is popular.

Popularity != Accuracy.

The truth is not decided by way of a popularity contest, and this is
true
even for subjects without an enormous cultural bias, positions which
people have (quite literally) been raised to believe.

You're welcome.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.co,

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> A few years ago in Rome on an archaeological tour the archaeologist
> pointed-out a group of interconnected rooms and stated that (I'm
> paraphrasing) "Most or many in his field *believe* that was Domition's
> bedroom where he was assassinated".
>
> Now if the evidence points to this as very likely true but no plaques
> were ever found saying 'Domition's Bedroom' should they not have this
> belief/opinion and should they not be able to defend their
> beliefs/opinions?

The screaming obvious problem here is that you haven't raised any
evidence -- you've made no case what so ever -- and merely noted
the popularity of the opinion as if it is somehow reflective of the
truth.

It's another example of the same fallacious argument.

You can spend all day every day naming the adherents to a particular
position, or you can lay out an actual case for that position, the
evidence backing it. And, no, the number of adherents is not
"Evidence."


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Poetic Justice]

JTEM wrote;

>You're welcome.

Always happy to help with your delusions.

And I routed for you in the 'USENET Kook Awards' in Jan 2007 and Feb
2007 and thought you got robbed in May 2008 for the 'Loony Maroon
Award'.

[Poetic Justice]

JTEM ranted;

>The screaming obvious problem here is
>that you haven't raised any evidence --

Really? Unlike you whose evidence is usually your personal delusions
never backed-up with any facts or evidence and refusing to accept any
facts or evidence contrary to you delusions... I though I provided the
evidence quite well, admitting poorly written.

>you've made no case what so ever --

Of course not!
It's Domition's Palace, it's the area definitely identified as the
Emperor's living quarters and if you take out the 3 non-practical sides
of this *huge* square courtyard with a *large* fountain you are left
with one side.

On that side are 2 rooms and 2 rooms above it (the floor is now gone but
the supports remain as proof).

Let's stick with the 2 groundfloor rooms with a fairly large fountain at
each end ()--|--() the sides of those rooms have a door and a large
window on the fountain sides.

The front rooms facing the large courtyard also have doors and large
windows.
The upper floor only as windows as can be expected.

Now this is where common sense comes into play just try to follow along.

Where do rich Romans with with elaborate homes put their bedrooms?

Facing the Atrium which is actually an open air courtyard with an
impluvium in the center and if they have aqueduct supplied water the
impluvium is often a fountain also.

Now what part of Domition Palace's definitely defined living quarters
fits that description?

Add an elaborate fountain on the side of each of the rooms?

So it's safe to assume that these are NOT the Imperial Slave quarters.

>and merely noted the popularity of the
>opinion as if it is somehow reflective of
>the truth.

Now why is that *opinion/belief* popular among archaeologists and
historians?

Perhaps looking at all the evidence they have come to a majority
conclusion that that is *very likely* the location?

And that is what they actually state, *their* opinion/belief based on
the evidence.

They don't state it as absolute "truth".

>It's another example of the same
>fallacious argument.

Of course in your Reality everything is a "fallacious argument" that you
don't agree with even if it is not.

>You can spend all day every day naming
>the adherents to a particular position,

Do you ever ask as to why professional scholars, archaeologists,
historians, etc become "adherents to a particular position"?

The 'Big Bang Theory'? Why don't the majority of scientists in that
field not believe that God created fuckin' everything in 6 days and
kicked-back on the 7th?
It is only a theory after all why are they "adherents to a particular
position"?

>or you can lay out an actual case for that
>position, the evidence backing it.

Everything in life and in history past is not cut and dry and laid-out
before us with 100% evidence.

In your reality there is no such thing as looking at the evidence and
drawing a logical conclusion.

Except your own of course where even that is not required as you have
repeatedly shown.

>And, no, the number of adherents is not
>"Evidence."

No shit! Where have I stated that their evidence is the absolute truth?

Their "opinions" or "beliefs" are based on any existing evidence and
from that they draw a logical conclusion which they then present as
their "opinion" or "belief" based on the evidence and a common sense
evaluation of the evidence.

But you on the otherhand are an expert on *everything* from DNA, C-14,
evolution, history, etc.

I am just utterly shocked that those in all those fields never have you
peer-review their research before they publish it?

And this round n' round is over at my end, as one of us is it his own
seperate reality and if we took a vote years ago when this was a very
active NG... Well it would be an Award that you would finally win.

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> JTEM ranted;
>
> >The screaming obvious problem here is
> >that you haven't raised any evidence --
>
> Really? Unlike you whose evidence is usually your personal delusions
> never backed-up with

So you're defending a fallacious argument with another fallacious
argument.

Sad. Pathetic, yes, but also sad.

These are not difficult concepts. With a minimal amount of effort
(and self checking) you can master the presentation of a legitimate
argument.

Please try it.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> Always happy to help with your delusions.
>
> And I routed for you in the 'USENET Kook Awards' in Jan 2007 and Feb
> 2007 and thought you got robbed in May 2008 for the 'Loony Maroon
> Award'.

You keep defending one fallacious argument with another. Are you
honestly this stupid, or do you suffer from emotional issues (besides
the obvious)?

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[zayton]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 1:54:32 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
> paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:
>
> > Now let's say at the 'International Convention of Scholars of Antiquity'
>
> > with 100's attending at the door they are given 2 choices a 'Red' shirt
>
> > or a 'Blue' shirt.
>
> >
>
> > As we look out over the convention floor we see that the vast majority
>
> > have chosen a 'Red' shirt and a very small minority has chosen a 'Blue'
>
> > shirt.
>
> >
>
> > And we claim based on the fact of what we are actually seeing is that a
>
> > very small minority of scholars are wearing 'Blue shirts'.
>
> >
>
> > What part is a fallacy?
>
>
>
> Claiming that it has any bearing on the question.
>
>
>
> It's not an argument. Period. Hence, it's "Fallacious." You're not
>
> arguing
>
> a gas, you're claiming that one position is popular.
>
>
>
> Popularity != Accuracy.

a scholarly consensus is not a matter of "popularity".
Only an idiot would suggest such a correspondence.

[JTEM]

zayton <jlskelto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a scholarly consensus is not a matter of "popularity".
> Only an idiot would suggest such a correspondence.

It is, actually, and has been on many occasions. And it's
not any kind of argument at all, it's idiocy.

Never mind anything as intangible as history, a truly
textbook example was interbreeding between
Neanderthals and so-called "moderns." The consensus
was soundly on the side of "No interbreeding." The
hive mind was utterly convinced in this matter, incapable
of even acknowledging evidence and clinging to conclusions
(opinions) like a drowning man to a life preserver. And then
one day a genetic study said, yes, everybody outside
sub saharan Africa carries Neanderthal genes so there had
to be interbreeding and the consensus flipped. Completely.

...and that's when there was tons of PHYSICAL evidence
to debate, actual science!

But that's just an example. The fact is that if you need someone
to explain to you why a claim of popularity is a fallacious argument
then I'm probably wasting my time with you...


-- --

[VtSkier]

So everybody knows...
You are NOT saying that the subject of the (fallacious) argument is
false, just that the argument itself does not prove or disprove accuracy
or "truth". Popularity (does not) equal accuracy.

It may well be true, based on evidence, that everybody except
sub-saharan Africans carry Neanderthal genes. And if true there was
interbreeding between "modern" and Neanderthals to achieve this. However
the fact that this is a popularly held belief does not make it true. It
may be true but being popular does not make it true.

[Axel Berger]

VtSkier wrote:
> It may well be true, based on evidence, that everybody except
> sub-saharan Africans carry Neanderthal genes. And if true there was
> interbreeding between "modern" and Neanderthals to achieve this.

No, not "there was" but "there might have been". The original paper with
the claim, Green, science *328* (2010), 710-722, itself clearly says so:

Although gene flow from Neandertals into
modern humans when they first left sub-Saharan
Africa seems to be the most parsimonious model
compatible with the current data, other scenarios
are also possible. For example,we cannot currently
rule out a scenario in which the ancestral population
of present-day non-Africans was more
closely related to Neandertals than the ancestral
population of present-day Africans due to ancient
substructure within Africa (Fig. 6). If after the
divergence of Neandertals there was incomplete
genetic homogenization between what were to
become the ancestors of non-Africans and Africans,
present-day non-Africans would be more
closely related to Neandertals than are Africans.
In fact, old population substructure in Africa has
been suggested based on genetic (81) as well as
paleontological data (86).

As the physicist Richard P. Feynman learnt to his cost: Never believe
the commentaries, always read the original primary literature yourself.

Axel

[VtSkier]

Thank you. You're right. I'm doing the same damn thing.

There is many times more genetic variation in human populations in
sub-Saharan Africa than apparently anywhere else on the globe. Why isn't
there any trace of Neanderthal genes there. The argument above says that
there may have been an "incomplete homogenization between what were to
become the ancestors of non-Africans and Africans," after the divergence
of Neanderthals, wouldn't the Neanderthal genes still be present in
sub-Saharan Africa? Or is it possible that the group(s) which left
Africa were the only ones who had Neanderthal genes? If so then the
entire population either left in the emigration or the remainder was
either killed or died off. I don't think it's reasonable to posit that
either of those two last possibilities came to pass.

The possibility that Neanderthal genes came with us from Africa seems
infinitely remote considering that there are no Neanderthal genes left
in sub-Saharan Africa. Occasional interbreeding seems like the only
argument that fits the evidence. The evidence being that non-African
modern humans carry Neanderthal genes.

However, you are still correct to say "there might have been" and not
"there was" interbreeding. Nobody was there with a hidden camera.

[Axel Berger]

VtSkier wrote:
> The possibility that Neanderthal genes came with us from Africa seems
> infinitely remote considering that there are no Neanderthal genes left
> in sub-Saharan Africa. Occasional interbreeding seems like the only
> argument that fits the evidence.

In principle yes. The question remains of where and when. We expect
contact around 40 ka or perhaps, but improbably between 130 and 71 ka in
the Levant. The genetics suggest an admixture around 60 ka when there is
no known contact. Newer finds might point to a Yemen route around that
time. Still, the data just don't seem to fit. I remain sceptic for the
time being but am keeping both eyes open for incoming new results.

Axel

[Martin Edwards]

Your point is?

[Martin Edwards]

Credulity.

[Martin Edwards]

Children, please. We are dealing with real issues.

[Poetic Justice]

>And you as you have stated in the past
>are in the 'Jesus Myths' camp, so a 'Blue'.

>And I have stated in the past that I am in
>the 'Historical Jesus' camp, so a 'Red'.

>You as a 'Blue' are a very small minority
>among the beliefs/opinions of ancient
>scholars of antiquity.

>Where am I going wrong here?

Martin Edwards wrote;

>Credulity.

"Credulity is the name of the phenomenon where some people just seem to
be champing at the bit to believe anything with only a small amount of
questionable evidence."

So I as a 14yr old boy in 1968 listened to a WBZ radio inteview with
Madalyn Murray O'Hair founder of American Atheist and went... Hummmm?

In the following couple of weeks or so I read the Bible cover-to-cover
(hardess read of my life).
And went... They have got to be fuckin' joking!

How's my "credulity" doing so far?

Also now I am in a *very small minority* (Atheists in the US).

In the mid-90's I develop a passion for Roman history and make 9 trips
to Italy over the years just for the historical sites.

1997 I discover the internet, Christianity is an interesting part of
Roman history and over the years I read about the 'Mythical Jesus' vs
the 'Historical Jesus' debate.
And went.... Hummmm?

Looked at both sides and all by my lonesome made MY decision.
Which just happens to be the same decision a large minority of scholars
of antiquity have also made.
I am now in the vast majority.

How's my "credulity" doing?

So am I correct that you are saying that I and the majority of scholars
on this issue have a 'credulity issue'?

But you and the very small minority of scholars on this issue do not?

Pot-Kettle-Black ring a bell?

[Poetic Justice]

>"...Robert M. Price agrees that this denial
>perspective runs against the views of the
>majority of scholars."

>He does admit that some of the Jesus
>tropes may be based on someone but,
>here's the nub, they could not all be based
>on the same person.

>So a 'Mythical Jesus' and not an actual
>living and breathing 'Historical Jesus'.

>Obama in one of his autobio books writes
>about his girlfriend, after reporters failed
>to find this actual living and breathing
>woman he finally admitted that she didn't
>exist but was a fictional (mythical) person
>make-up from actual living and breathing
>past girlfriends and I believe girls he was
>just friends with.

Martin Edwards wrote;

>Your point is?

This was your "nub";

"they could not all be based on the same person."

And I give you a "somewhat" modern day factual example of your trope
"nub".

A fictional Obama girlfriend whose words (conversations, expressions,
etc) were not all based on the same person.

You didn't make that connection and see my point and perhaps I didn't
make it very well or clear.

[Poetic Justice]

>And I routed for you in the 'USENET Kook
>Awards' in Jan 2007 and Feb 2007 and
>thought you got robbed in May 2008 for
>the 'Loony Maroon Award'.

Martin Edwards wrote;

>Children, please. We are dealing with real
>issues.

As was I.

"Your Honor this goes to the credibility of the witness":-).

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> "Your Honor this goes to the credibility of the witness":-).

Which is another fallacious argument: Ad hominem.

Congratulations!


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:


> So everybody knows...
> You are NOT saying that the subject of the (fallacious) argument is
> false, just that the argument itself does not prove or disprove accuracy
> or "truth". Popularity (does not) equal accuracy.

Yes, but...

> It may well be true, based on evidence, that everybody except
> sub-saharan Africans carry Neanderthal genes. And if true there was
> interbreeding between "modern" and Neanderthals to achieve this. However
> the fact that this is a popularly held belief does not make it true.

It kind of does, actually. If we carry Neanderthal genes then there
had
to be interbreeding, we have to have Neanderthal ancestors.

Ironically, there were prior DNA studies which were routinely upheld
as disproving interbreeding, even when the assumptions this conclusion
was based on were demonstrated to be false.

See, one of the very first mtDNA studies in paleoanthropology was the
Wilson & Cann study -- the one that was misrepresented by the press
as somehow "Finding Eve." It was often called the "Out of Africa/Eve
2"
study.

Anyhow, this study used African Americans for their African
population,
when it's no secret that interbreeding between America's African &
European population had always taken place, perhaps far more so in
the antebellum south where rich slave owners kept virtual harems!

Here's the tricky part...

The Wilson & Cann study was re-done using actual African subject for
it's African population, and the results were duplicated. Thus,
starting
in the very beginning of the application of this study,
paleoanthropology
had proof positive that two separate populations could interbreed like
rabbits on viagra and STILL maintain their identities and unique mtDNA
signatures.

...but you couldn't tell people this. I know, because i tried for
years.
I argued this point over in talk.origins for years, and not a single
person
there was on my side. The consensus -- hive mind -- was as locked on
conclusions (and as blind to evidence) as anyone could ever be...

> It
> may be true but being popular does not make it true.

The popularity doesn't make it true, but it is true and this fact is
demonstrated by the evidence.

What's making it true? THE EVIDENCE!

What is irrelevant here? It's popularity.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Axel Berger <Axel.Ber...@Gmx.De> wrote:

> No, not "there was" but "there might have been". The original paper with
> the claim, Green, science *328* (2010), 710-722, itself clearly says so:

Ironically, you quote opinion and not evidence.

And the DNA study wasn't even close to the only evidence.
In fact, the morphological evidence compiled by Trinkhaus
prior to the DNA evidence was itself a slam dunk. meaning,
nearly all of the Phylogenetic tree is based on far, Far, *Far*
less evidence than what Trinkhaus amassed. If we had been
debating any other species on the planet -- at any other time
in the planet's history -- the books would have been closed
years earlier.

But let me step back and reiterate the point: What you just
did here was introduce an OPINION based on one piece of
evidence and misrepresent THAT as authoritative.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

VtSkier <VtSk...@somewhere.net> wrote:

> Thank you. You're right. I'm doing the same damn thing.

No, you're doing something even worse. You're looking at
one minority OPINION on how one single line of evidence
might be interpreted ONLY IF IT IS VIEWED IN ISOLATION
FROM OTHER LINES OF EVIDENCE!

The DNA evidence was never alone, everything you're
agreeing with here is NOT placing that DNA evidence
along side (within the context of) the rest of the evidence.
It's insisting on viewing that DNA evidence in total
isolation.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/humans-and-neanderthals-interbred/

And even THIS is hardly the extant of the evidence. There's
also the remains of hybrids -- plural -- the most famous being
the young boy found in Portugal.

So, just from all this what we have is a population that's
supposed to be migrating from Africa which is slowly
becoming more like the neaderthals -- they're changing
physically, sprouting neadnerthal like features -- even as
we have what appear to be full blown hybrids AND the
DNA evidence. The DNA evidence was the very last
piece here.

Well, on the hybrids was rather recent, after the DNA
evidence...

> There is many times more genetic variation in human populations in
> sub-Saharan Africa than apparently anywhere else on the globe.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. Could you explain it?

But Africa is believed to have hosted (roughly) 60% of the human
populations during the evolutionarily important times we are
discussing, broken
up amongst various population exploiting separate environments,
separate niches.

And, yes, we would expect significant variation between, say, Pygmy
and
the younger, more recently arrived "normal" populations.

> Why isn't
> there any trace of Neanderthal genes there. The argument above says that
> there may have been an "incomplete homogenization between what were to
> become the ancestors of non-Africans and Africans," after the divergence
> of Neanderthals, wouldn't the Neanderthal genes still be present in
> sub-Saharan Africa? Or is it possible that the group(s) which left
> Africa were the only ones who had Neanderthal genes? If so then the
> entire population either left in the emigration or the remainder was
> either killed or died off. I don't think it's reasonable to posit that
> either of those two last possibilities came to pass.

You're mistaken. We share a not-insignificant number of our
genes with bananas (Google it). It's a given that Neanderthals and
their contemporaries in sub saharan African shared nearly all of
their genes.

Which brings us to another problem...

Neanderthals aren't believed to have come from Mars. And they
weren't reptiles. They were humans -- Homo neanderthalenis --
who lived in & adapted to a separate (and distinct) environment.
Conventionally they are referred to as "Cold Adapted."

Now, the thing is, what would happen if you take unique
Neanderthal DNA -- genes that evolved in Neanderthals, one
would presume these being genes which helped to them
survive in (better exploit?) their environment -- and send them
to a population in a completely different environment?

Well, given everything we know about biology, those new
genes would either go wild in the new environment, spreading
like crazy, or they'd probably die out. We call it "Natural
Selection."

We see this when a new disease of plant or even animal
is introduced to an environment: They can't compete in
the new (different) conditions or they spread like crazy...

Thus, if we took genes that evolved in ice aged europe and
set them down in sub Saharan Africa we could expect that
natural selection would either wipe those genes out, or
spread them until they became dominant (depending on
whether those genes represented an advantage or disadvantage
in the new environment).

And here's the kicker: This would have happened BACK THEN,
100,000 years ago or more. So if we were going to look for
Neanderthal genes in sub Saharan Africa the very best place to
look would not be in the modern gene pool (not finding them
there is no proof that they weren't), but in human remains as
close to the point of origin of those genes as we can match.

And, no, it doesn't have to work in reverse. Just because we
believe that genes went from Africa to Europe, and even from
Asia to Europe and Africa, doesn't mean that European genes
would have to survive such a journey and be present in modern
populations.

There's no rhyme or reason here. This is evolution, not logic.

There's nothing that says that a gene which is an advantage in
Asia can't be an advantage in Africa as well, and there's
certainly no rule that says a gene which is an advantage in
Europe must be an advantage in Africa...

So if you want to find Neanderthal genes in Africa, or at least
rule them out, you really can't honestly claim that you
excluded the possibility until you've looked at prehistoric
DNA from close to the time when the genes supposedly arose.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:

> So am I correct that you are saying that I and the majority of scholars
> on this issue have a 'credulity issue'?

You keep mentioning this "majority" as if it's
relevant.

Now I suppose you can argue that you're simply
a poor communicator, that you lack communication
skill and don't mean to keep emphasizing the
irrelevant, but I hardly see how that might strengthen
any of you fallacious arguments here.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Axel Berger]

JTEM wrote:
> But let me step back and reiterate the point: What you just
> did here was introduce an OPINION based on one piece of
> evidence and misrepresent THAT as authoritative.

I quoted the original author or the primary article that introduced the
new proof of the presumed 2 % admixture of Neanderthal genes, and what I
quoted was his own interpretation of his own primary data. If he himself
concedes his case to be not proven, then that's good enough for me.

Anything more would require the full examination of the complete (to my
knowledge unpublished) raw data. But to claim something was proven when
not even the original author says so is simply wrong.

As to morphology there is as yet no agreement about the width of
variability inside a species versus different species of even genus'.
This goes for just about any fossil and any named species in the clade.
All presumed Neanderthal-Modern hybrids come from the wrong time by at
least a thousand years.

So Neanderthals and Moderns very probably are not two species but two
regional subspecies. This says nothing about whether they met, mated and
had viable offspring adding to our gene pool.

Axel

[Axel Berger]

JTEM wrote:
> If we carry Neanderthal genes then there had
> to be interbreeding, we have to have Neanderthal ancestors.

No, they may be carried over from our common ancestor.

> paleoanthropology had proof positive that two separate populations
> could interbreed like rabbits on viagra and STILL maintain their
> identities and unique mtDNA signatures.

That's trivial. If all feamales come from one group or mixed descendants
thereof, then there will be no dilution of mtDNA, whomever they mate
with.

> rich slave owners kept virtual harems!

Sic. This is why the new studies are done on nuclear DNA, which allows
inferences about population size and social structure from even a single
individual as in the case of the Denisovans.

Axel

[Matt Giwer]

On 6/12/2013 2:03 AM, JTEM wrote:
> 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.

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]

On 6/12/2013 12:31 AM, JTEM wrote:
> : "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

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.

[Matt Giwer]

You are very deep into crackpot territory.

You are using believe in two difference senses. The bible believers
believe there was a Jesus absent any physical evidence. Scientists do
not "believe" there was a big bang rather they know that is where the
evidence points.

Apollonius of Tyana, Mithra, Hercules are all in the same category as
Jesus. There is no physical evidence for any of them no matter how many
believed in them. That belief in only one has survived to this day does
not change the fact that in ancient times the belief in all of them was
without physical evidence just as it is today.

Now if you have physical evidence NOT argumentation in support of a
Jesus please post it. You will be the first. No one else has found any.

[Matt Giwer]

Are you unaware this guy is Ed Conrad?

[Martin Edwards]

Thanks, I had no idea it still went on.

[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.

[Martin Edwards]

I'll allow it, but proceed with caution.

[JTEM]

Axel Berger <Axel.Ber...@Gmx.De> wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > But let me step back and reiterate the point:  What you just
> > did here was introduce an OPINION based on one piece of
> > evidence and misrepresent THAT as authoritative.
>
> I quoted the original author or the primary article

So you quote an opinion, and even now misrepresent this opinion
as authoritative.

There's data and then there's opinion one presumes to be drawn
on data. What you're doing here is pretending that one's ability
to amass data is directly proportionate to one's ability to draw
sound inferences from such data. This is false.

...amongst the obvious reasons why: As I had already pointed
out, the DNA evidence was far from the only evidence. In fact, it
was some of the last evidence. Studies of human anatomy --
simply looking at the frigging remains of Neanderthals and the
archaic "moderns" -- made a compelling case for interbreeding
all on it's own. It made a case far stronger than was necessary,
far better and stronger than pretty much all the cases currently
accepted in biology.

VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE PHYLOGENETIC TREE IS BASED
ON FAR LESS EVIDENCE!

Outside of species observed during historic times, pretty much
our entire understanding of evolution -- of all the species that
ever lived and how they relate to each other -- is built on
significantly
LESS evidence than Trinkhaus had amassed on Neanderthal/
archaic moderns.

The opinion (not evidence) you quote & misrepresent ignores this
and other evidence. It removes the DNA finding from the larger
context of the evidence. It arrives at it's conclusion by IGNORING
evidence.

And, by extension, so don't you.

Congratulations.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Axel Berger <Axel.Ber...@Gmx.De> wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > If we carry Neanderthal genes then there had
> > to be interbreeding, we have to have Neanderthal ancestors.
>
> No, they may be carried over from our common ancestor.

No. One can only entertain such a notion is they are so
invested in one particular outcome that they choose to
ignore all evidence EXCEPT what might be used in defense
of their agenda.

> > paleoanthropology had proof positive that two separate populations
> > could interbreed like rabbits on viagra and STILL maintain their
> > identities and unique mtDNA signatures.
>
> That's trivial.

Not at all. The DNA centric fools (hi!) have NEVER been able to
interpret their own data. They've always been excellent at
accumulating data -- seeing what the DNA is, what it looks like --
and they've always been horrendous as piecing together how it
got that way.

You're ignoring the evidence -- ALL OF IT -- with the lone exception
of the DNA, all just so you can cling to a stupid conclusion.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

>         Are you unaware this guy is Ed Conrad?

Yes I was.

I never even glimpsed at any headers.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[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

[Axel Berger]

JTEM wrote:
> What you're doing here is pretending that one's ability
> to amass data is directly proportionate to one's ability to draw
> sound inferences from such data. This is false.

What I'm really doing here is assuming that the primary author's
competence in interpreting his own data is incomparably higher than mine
and - barring evidence to the contrary - presumably yours. If he himself
says his data don't quite prove his thesis and are open to an
alternative fitting them equally well, that's good enough for me.

Axel

[Poetic Justice]

>You didn't make that connection and see
>my point and perhaps I didn't make it very
>well or clear.

Martin Edward wrote;

>Thanks, I had no idea it still went on.

You're Welcome.
And as usual you never back-up your beliefs/statements but just resort
to snippy 1-liners or a single 'question marked' word.

Next time I'll use your 'Billy the Kid' or "Brett Mavick" examples.

[Poetic Justice]

Matt Giwer wrote;

>You are very deep into crackpot territory.

Not IMO *if* the 'Big Bang Theory' encompasses the pre-Bang and the
final outcome post-Bang?

>You are using believe in two difference
>senses.

Same as above.

>The bible believers believe there was a
>Jesus absent any physical evidence.

But we are not talking about the Cross-Worshippers here?
We are talking about modern historians on 2 sides of an issue.

>Scientists do not "believe" there was a big
>bang rather they know that is where the
>evidence points.

Yes definitely, but the 'beliefs' are at the very beginning and at the
very end of the 'Big Bang Theory'.

Scientists know there was a 'POOF' expansion of the universe (Big Bang)
and that today it is not only still expanding but speeding up. Fact.

Where the 'beliefs' comes into play in the 'Big Bang Theory' is;

What happened before 'POOF' and where is the universe going (Big Crunch,
Big Freeze, etc).
And the different 'beliefs' on the mechanics of the universe, like Dark
Matter's effect.

Cause? (belief), Effect (fact), Final Result? (belief).

>Apollonius of Tyana, Mithra, Hercules are
>all in the same category as Jesus.

Apples and oranges.
Only Apollonius would be either a 1C historical or fictional person?
We are not talking religion here, only what historians believe on the
matter.

>There is no physical evidence for any of
>them no matter how many believed in
>them.

Again we are not talking about a religion but if an actual person
existed in the early 1C.

>That belief in only one has survived to this
>day does not change the fact that in
>ancient times the belief in all of them was
>without physical evidence just as it is
>today.

We are not talking about a religion's aftermath effect.

Only *If* he was a living person that existed physically.

>Now if you have physical evidence NOT
>argumentation in support of a Jesus
>please post it.

What *exactly* is this sub-thread about?

>"Among the variants of the Jesus myth
>theory, the hypothesis that a historical
>Jesus figure never existed is supported
>only by a very small minority of modern
>scholars."

It's not about "physical evidence".
There is none and it would be a miracle if there was.

If this miracle *ever* happened (a buried jar with Pilate's official
records, a bone box of a crucified man with an inscription, etc) it
would be labeled a forgery no matter what any non-bias evidence could
prove.

It's about the vast majority of modern day scholars of antiquity
'Belief' that an 'Historical Jesus' (living, breathing person) existed.

And "a small minority" of modern day scholars of antiquity 'Belief'
that he didn't (Mythical not a living breathing person).

These 'majority' historians base their belief/theory on what written
evidence exists maybe with some common sense thrown in and came to their
conclusion.

That's it!!!

>You will be the first.
>No one else has found any.

See above. I have never claimed that nor have I'm also extremely certain
the 'majority' historians haven't either.

On the flip-side of this and other past threads like this *no one* in
the 'Mythical Jesus' camp *ever* supports their claims.

History is not math, historians must sift thru the evidence that exists
and reach a conclusion.

'Your' argument would have *all* ancient history books very, very, very
thin.

Augustus was a living breathing Emperor as we have "physical evidence"
that he existed.

But we only have written evidence of which none is original of what he
did, events that took place, multiple people named in these events but
no "physical evidence" to back most (not all) of these up.

So we have an 'Historical Augustus' and a 'Mythical Augustus' based on
"physical evidence" or lack of "physical evidence".

-------------------------------------

Epaphroditos is an 1C Imperial Slave mentioned by the big ancient
writers (3 IIFC).

Claudius makes him a Freedmen he is now 'Tiberius Claudius
Epaphroditos'.

Later he is Nero's Imperial secretary, he warns Nero of the Piso plot
gets military honors and a nice fat reward, he buys gardens on the
Esquiline Hill, he is now rich and powerful, he helps Nero escape and
assists with his suicide and is a witness to Nero's last words something
like "What a great artist dies with me" and history records those words.

13yrs later Domition becomes Emperor and at some point banishes him and
~95AD has him executed.

There is Zero 'physical evidence' that he existed, so in Your version of
history he is a mythical person... Correct?

Yet no historians doubted his existance and accepted this as fact.

Doubting this unknown bit-part player in history gets no book deals,
paid lectures, documentries, famous research papers, etc.

Actually in modern times his funeral plaque has been found and I was
using that just as an example only because I happened across it in a
Rome museum among *many* others.

[zayton]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 1:51:39 AM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
> zayton <jlskelto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > a scholarly consensus is not a matter of "popularity".
>
> > Only an idiot would suggest such a correspondence.
>
>
>
> It is, actually, and has been on many occasions. And it's
>
> not any kind of argument at all, it's idiocy.


If you were a scholar in the area of anthropology, I would bother to read your argument, assuming there was a reasonable possibility it was factual and well reasoned. If you were a scholar speaking for a scholarly consensus in the area, I would read it in the anticipation of being persuaded. Since I knew you are a blowhard who assumes your uneducated opinion is just as good as that of an expert in any field, if not better, I won't bother.

Even an expert in a field who assumes that his personal opinion is to be preferred to the scholarly consensus is an idiot; therefore "idiot" would be a complementary title for an amateur who thinks the same.
>
>
>
> Never mind anything as intangible as history, a truly
>
> textbook example was interbreeding between
>
> Neanderthals and so-called "moderns." The consensus
>
> was soundly on the side of "No interbreeding." The
>
> hive mind was utterly convinced in this matter, incapable
>
> of even acknowledging evidence and clinging to conclusions
>
> (opinions) like a drowning man to a life preserver. And then
>
> one day a genetic study said, yes, everybody outside
>
> sub saharan Africa carries Neanderthal genes so there had
>
> to be interbreeding and the consensus flipped. Completely.
>
>
>
> ...and that's when there was tons of PHYSICAL evidence
>
> to debate, actual science!
>
>
>
> But that's just an example. The fact is that if you need someone
>
> to explain to you why a claim of popularity is a fallacious argument
>
> then I'm probably wasting my time with you...
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --

[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.

[Poetic Justice]

>Matt Giwer wrote;
>You are very deep into crackpot territory.

>I wrote;

>Not IMO *if* the 'Big Bang Theory'
>encompasses the pre-Bang and the final
>outcome post-Bang?

Scratch that!

I must not rely on documentries and actually google for my facts.
(retype statement 100 times:)

The 'Big Bang Theory' starts at the actual 'event' itself and not before
nor does it encompass the final/end result of its expansion.

[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.