Discussion in 'Judaism' started by prajapati, Sep 23, 2005.
i'd lke to know if the claims of the site checks out historically OR not .
this is old news again & that site is ICK.
there are all kinds of theories out on that stuff. if you want to believe it, that is up to you. i am sticking with the bible all the way.
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
just because they never find the murder weapon does not mean it does not exist or it did not happen. in 1,000 years people will be doubting that 9/11 ever happened. that is just the way it is.
so what do you think Mr. prajapati?
check out this too:
and this too
is this another one of your attempts to 'prove' something?
maybe think of something different than the mannequin approach to everyones religion & beliefs.
more fault finding to satisfy an ego & point fingers?
I haven't looked at the sites, but I would say that it is probably quite likely based on the evidence that the Davidic and Solomonic dynasty was just a smaller tribal kingdom, and that what the Tanach says is really inflated by the authors, as you can imagine any society would do. I really don't think we know enough to say at this point where the story of the Exodus comes from, that is what led the authors of the bible to write it down. Had to have been some contact but there are so many theories. Not worth guessing to me.
The Enuma Elish definitely appears to have influenced the writing of the Torah, but the Torah also makes some huge breaks from the writers of the Enuma Elish, e.g. beginning with an eternal God about whom almost nothing is known. This other page by the same author seems to deal with these issues you're asking about:
It's a good start if you're sincerely interested, although I would suggest reading from a few different people to really get an understanding of the issues as everyone has their own personal approach and none of these approaches is "God's word."
well, i'm not a historian, so i can't say whether something "checks out historically" but this site (yawn) is basically asking "have you quit beating your wife?" as it happens, i do actually know karen armstrong and i don't think she'd approve of being used as ammunition for what is clearly a tendentious and hostile attempt to show (apparently) that judaism is a historic con trick made up of egyptian and babylonian source elements. you may also like to know that every culture in the world has a flood myth. perhaps we copied ours from the native americans. i think you're also failing to understand something basic about academia (as indeed is the site author) namely that academic positions are hypothetical and based upon the available evidence. as bandit says, because a murder weapon has not yet been found that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. similarly, i wouldn't expect the egyptians to mention the exodus - it would have been somewhat embarrassing for them. in fact, i believe the jews are about the only culture in the area to point out in *their own sources* things that do not reflect credit upon them. in other words, we're pretty upfront about our failings - something you cannot accuse the egyptians, babylonians greeks or romans of.
to sum up, you cannot possibly expect any reasonable person to take this site seriously. it isn't good history; what it is is second-hand, shoddy polemic; about on the level with those fools who thought that white skin was evidence of moral superiority.
ty both of you for the replies. i have specific questions from that site but would like to do some more research before asking them. but for now -
i read somewhere that some of the laws of moses were also traced to egyptians, sumerian and other cultures around that area - could that be true??
if so then it places a big ? on the veracity of the "Delivered" claim implicit in prophetism.
also was abraham avinu indeed 100 when issac was conceived ?
Most definitely some of the laws appear in some form in other places. I personally reject prophecy in general. It seems to go against the nature of the universe. But I'm sure BB will supply you with another approach to those particular texts in question.
I don't think it has yet been established that either of these two people really existed. The only evidence for that is the biblical narrative, so if you'd like precise ages for turning points in their lives, the only thing you have to go by is the literal reading of the Torah. I personally shy away from that, although I will refer to to a more literal reading from a subjective standpoint. In my subjective experience, Abraham and Isaac are real. So is Superman, but I invest less in him.
Peace and blessings.
yes. problem is that they have appeared in older dates than when the commandments are supposed to have been handed out. also in places where the ancient hebrews had been to.
i am very interested to know what made you say that prophetism is against the nature of the universe... or did you mean against the nature of man.. or both?
yes there's no historical proof of any of the prophets i think, save muhammed.
if you will not take this the wrong way, then may i recommend a book available here
i didnt know what to make of it.
"i am very interested to know what made you say that prophetism is against the nature of the universe... or did you mean against the nature of man.. or both?"
It's illogical to say that a person can predict what will happen in the future beyond the reasonable bounds of discernment. I know some level of intuition exists, but this is merely the ability to calculate an answer or outcome based on available information. Prophecy goes beyond reason. It's irrational.
I don't think you understood what I said. Personally, I think it's quite likely many of the biblical prophets were real people. But being a real person doesn't mean they can predict the future, and this is true for any individual.
What I was saying is that I don't read the Torah literally. I don't know that Abraham or Isaac were actually real people, but in my experience of the world Abraham and Isaac are real people. They are a part of my subjective reality, even as I think it's more likely they're an amalgamation of ancestor stories told by the Hebrews. I don't believe in them, and I don't have to. It's not important to me whether they were real people or not. They're a part of the stories I tell, the prayers I utter. They inspire me and take me back to an ancient place I am otherwise disconnected from, and that can be very intense and very powerful, to own their stories as my own, and wrestle with them as with all things. Is that a better explanation?
yes thats prophesy.
i was talking about prophetism - where one man is supposed to have come in contact with god and gets a message from god to all humanity, and then the rest of humanity has to live their lives according to the laws prophet hands out, claiming that those laws are not from him but the maker.
is that against the law of human nature or not ??
to live your life according to the dictates of another??
yes they were real people.
but that doesnr prove that they indeed spoke to god or that god communicated to them, often from behind bushes.
i understand the bit about the feeling of being taken back to the ancient place you are disconnected from being a very powerful one - my question was about 2 things regarding ptophetism -
-the veracity of the "prophet's" claim that he was indeed in touch with god.
-the wisdom of having to live your life according to laws laid down by another person, the supposedly having been handed to him from above.
dont people have a right to live as they want to?
It goes beyond even the issue of human nature, although a separate conversation could be had over whether it is human nature to follow any rule at all. This has to do with the probability and plausiblity. It is not a plausible or probable scenario. How do you even know that God exists? How do you know that all people do not have the same power to come into contact with God? Why begin to make assumptions?
yes they were real people.
but that doesnr prove that they indeed spoke to god or that god communicated to them, often from behind bushes."
I never said Moses was a real person, and if we're going by the biblical narrative as you seem to be, it does claim at one point that God spoke to Moses face to face. It could also be suggested that the bush was simply the language of an earlier paradigm to reflect what a later paradigm would say in different words, just as Arthur Green suggests now that all of the language moving upwards should in our times be understood as moving inward. But I already said I don't take the Tanach literally. I don't even know that Moses was a real person, nor does it matter much to me spiritually.
I don't believe he was in touch with God in the way that you claim. He may have had very heightened spiritual experiences, just like many many other people. But he also may not have had those at all.
I don't think there's any wisdom in accepting a received tradition as Truth without opening it up for skepticism and questioning. I would do away with any connection between Tradition and Truth at all. I know that confusing Tradition for Truth is very dangerous. The past proves that, as does the present. Do people have the right to live as they want to? Of course. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
the intent of the site is interesting .... the article was written by kenneth humphreys who is connected with the american atheists group that works for civil liberities of atheists .... there was a 'disclaimer' at the site of the american atheists about a recent meeting where a larry darby, head of the athiests law center (which is not the same as the american atheists group) hosted a speaker named david irving, who is a well known holocaust denier .... and larry darby was at one time the director for the american athiest group .... but the disclaimer says that his views do not reflect the position of the american athiest group or its officers ..... because of its agenda I would say this is a very poor choice of web sites to reference regarding whether or not the claim historically checks out .... if one wants to be an atheist, that is good and fine, but there is another agenda at work here that I don't feel comfortable with .... so I will simply say, no it does not check out historically...and certainly doesn't check out spiritually .... he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine
Indeed, it's the sort of nasty anti-religious site that we really don't want represented on CR - with that I'm going to thank the members for their considered replies, and close the thread at that.
Separate names with a comma.