No Doubt, do you like Steve Martin's new stuff. I've seen him in concert twice now. Loved it.

Yeah Nice. The Crow...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jn3KCZEqxc

great stuff, man.

So, I know I'm off topic but do you guys like the Flecktones then?

don't know em, mg.

Bela Fleck, one of the players in Steve's band has his own band called the Flecktones. Killer stuff!

Yep. Bela Fleck and the Flecktones are awesome.

Actually, a lot of people in myth were real characters, but the circumstances of their lives are highly exaggerated and blown out of proportion.

An Abraham most likely lived; he might have even tried sacrificing his son (it was not an uncommon practice), yet angels didn't visit him and his wife didn't give birth when she was an ancient woman.

For centuries, people believed the city of Troy was mythic, but now, we know it existed. This does not mean that the Iliad is nonfiction: it just means that Troy was a real city.

This is the way I feel about it too. Attempting to discredit the Bible by claiming that the characters described within the stories never existed is both futile and dangerous.

It's futile because it's basically impossible to prove that someone never existed. And it's dangerous because if someone shows that a person did exist that resembles a character closely, then this give them an opportunity to scream, "See! The person really did exist, thus the stories are TRUE!"

But like Gwendolyn says, that doesn't automatically follow.

There are some scholars who believe that Hercules may have actually existed. Of course they are talking about an actual mortal human not a demigod who was the son of Zeus.

However, those rumors and fables may have actually been sparked from rumors about this mortal man named Hercules.

Just because Hercules actually existed (if he did) it doesn't automatically follow that he really was the son of Zeus, etc.

Same thing is true with the biblical stories.

You could show me absolute hard-core proof that some guy named Jesus actually taught against the immoral values of the Torah, called the Pharisees hypocrites, and was indeed nailed to a pole by an angry mob.

Does that mean that he was the son of Yahweh, or that any of the rumors told in the New Testament about him are actually true?

No, it wouldn't even remotely suggest any of that.

So trying to discredit these rumors by showing that these characters never existed is not a very good approach. There very well may have been people who did some of the things in these stories. That doesn't mean that every last rumor about them is true.

I personally imagine that some of these character did actually exist. I'm personally convinced that a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist did indeed try to teach people better morals than they had been taught by the Pharisees and the Torah. He very well may have ultimately been crucified for his views. That was a common practice back then, those people were brutal.

Whoever that man was, his life and times may very well have been the fodder for the rumors of the New Testament that claim that he was the Christ, the son of Yahweh.

But just because this guy may have actually lived, it doesn't mean that these rumors about him are true in all their superstitious details.

On the contrary, it is the best approach.

Because three very major current religions are all based on King David you would think they would work very hard to learn everything they can about King David, Abraham, Moses, Joshua etc. who were all from the bloodline of King David.

The reason they don't is because of the fact that these characters never existed and any serious effort to prove that they did would only be more proof that they didn't which would damage all three religions.

One such Jewish historian and professor has done just that. His name is Shlomo Sand. His book is a work of History. It is a national best seller. It is called "The invention of the Jewish People."

In the book he explains what it means to be "Jewish" and how Israel classifies and categorizes people by their nationality, race or bloodlines and what it takes to be considered 'Jewish.' If you have any confusion on this issue I recommend this book.

From Wiki about the author and book:

Sand's explanation of the birth of the myth of a Jewish people as a group with a common, ethnic origin has been summarized as follows: "[a]t a certain stage in the 19th century intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people "retrospectively," out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people.

From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish historians began to draw the history of Judaism as the history of a nation that had been a kingdom, became a wandering people and ultimately turned around and went back to its birthplace."

He also comments that: "It is true that I am an historian of France and Europe, and not of the ancient period. (...)", and that: "I’ve been criticised in Israel for writing about Jewish history when European history is my specialty. But a book like this needed a historian who is familiar with the standard concepts of historical inquiry used by academia in the rest of the world.

how can it be 'proven' that a person or thing NEVER existed?

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,,,

You would have to read the book and use common sense. To base three religions on characters who can't even be proven to have existed is pretty shaky ground.

The evidence of a great migration (The exodus from Egypt) does not exist. The time lines don't match up. There are a lot of intricate details I could go into but it pretty tedious reading and I have not gotten through all of it myself.

It is all very accurate history. No King David or reign of King David can be found at the time he was said to have lived.

The term "Jewish" was not even in earlier versions of the Bible, and Judeans were not "Jewish" and there was no such religion, and contrary to what some people would have you believe, a Judean is not a Jew.

common sense cant even tell us if someone NEVER existed though

It pleases me to hear that the gruesome story of Joshua killing everyone at Jericho and in the Promised land without mercy acting on the orders of "The Lord" (who ever that was) did not ever happen.

History is history. There is no evidence they ever existed. That is enough for me.

When there is plenty of evidence of many other things happening in Egypt and in that part of the world at that time an nothing about these stories... that suggests that it is impossible that they ever happened.

That many people wandering around in the desert for that long would have left traces too.

I'm not going to try to convince you or anyone. If you want to investigate, that's fine. If you like what you have, keep that. It does not matter to me.

I am giving the book name for anyone who is curious.

is it your belief that if man has no written history or physical 'evidence' of an event or person , their existence is impossible?


it is my belief that if man has no written history or physical 'evidence' there are at least two options

1 it didnt exist

or

2 man has yet to UNCOVER the evidence that it existed

,,,,,I can think of many other options, but Im surprised that anyone comes to an absolute conclusion that it makes something 'impossible'

,,,especially someone who is so inclined to believe in other things being 'covered up' and lied about through omission of 'evidence' or other mortal verification,,,

I never come to absolute conclusions.

But King David is a Major player!! He was a King. So are all the other characters. Major players in the Bible! Yet no evidence of any of them. That is what is impossible.

There are many major players in History who have clear evidence of their existence and also many events that are recorded and backed up with archaeological evidence. Some of these cultures and events are well documented and supported by other historical records.

This historian was researching Jewish history. He did not intend to find what he found. It was just there glaring at him. There are many other historian who know this, but they perpetuate the myth of the Jewish people and their lineage to this mythical King.

I don't make absolute conclusions until I read and study the information. I just happened to stumble on this book.

Is it possible King David existed? Sure anything is possible. But it is highly unlikely.

Is his book controversial? You bet! But his information that he presents is impeccable.

well, thats a bit better than deeming something 'impossible' I guess

Well, I don't know about that. I guess that all depends on who's stories you believe.

I've read papers where people claim that archeologists have indeed uncovered the ruins of an ancient city that is believed by many to be in the proper location and time period where this supposed city of Jericho may have existed. They also claim that these ruins show that the walls of the city had indeed crumbed. They could tell this because of the bones of the people who had obviously been crushed and killed underneath the falling walls.

I have no clue how true this report is, or whether it actually matches up with any supposed locations and time periods or not. But, from my perspective that's totally irrelevant.

Let's assume that the evidence actually exists.

Let's assume that even more evidence exists! Let's assume that it can be absolute determined that this city is indeed the city called Jericho. Perhaps they found a wall with this name inscribed on it or something like that. And the evidence for the crumbled walls is evident as well.

So? Should I rush out to a church and start begging for repentance and acceptance of Yahweh?

I think not.

Even if such a city could be found and verified to be Jericho and that the way had fallen that doesn't mean that the rumors about the city are true.

On the contrary, all it means is that some event at that city sparked those rumors.

That's all it means.

And there could still be plenty of perfectly rational explanation for how the rumors got started.

So, some guy (maybe even named Joshua) led his army into Jericho preparing to attack the city. As he was preparing to attack he gave the order to sound the trumpets. The trumpets blew their horns.

Just then, by pure accidentally coincidence, an earthquake occurred. The ground shook and everyone was tossed into a state of chaos. The quake was bad enough that it crumbled the walls of the city.

After the quake settled, Jericho's army that had been standing out in the fields surrounding the city, had only been lightly shaken. But within the city major damage had taken place because the walls had crumbles and many people were hurt or killed.

Joshua seized the opportunity to easily go in an kill the remaining survivors of the quake.

After this extremely unexpected and obviously highly controversial event RUMORS sprang up. And those rumors became the story of Joshua at Jericho and how "God" had supposedly planned this in advance and even told Joshua ahead of time to have his men blow the trumpet, etc.

And that become a superstitious religious belief that God actually orchestrated this whole thing.

~~~~~~~~~

So even if they found the city for certain and evidence of Joshua, and evidence for a battle, and even HORNS laying around on the battle field. I would STILL not be impressed.

Because I would absolutely EXPECT superstitious rumors to have grown out of the scenario that I had just described above.

I would absolutely EXPECT that. So the idea that superstitious rumors grew out of this event would not be surprising to me at all.

~~~~~~~~

Finally, someone might ask me, "Well gee whiz? Why take that stance? Why not accept that just MAYBE it really was divine intervention?

What?

Divine intervention?

What the hell would be "divine" about a God commanding people to ruthlessly murder every man, woman, and child in a city?

What the hell would be "divine" about a God actually talking part in such a battle by causing the walls of the city to crumble.

Gee whiz. If this God was that anxious to rid the world of these people why didn't he just wave a magic wand and make them disappear before Joshua even came by?

I mean seriously?

The idea that some supposedly 'divine' all-wise all-benevolent God would even be involved in such a horrible one-side war and even take part in the battle by making the walls of the city crumble is, quite frankly, IMHO, utterly ludicrous!

~~~~

So the scenario that I gave above about how the whole event might have occurred via freak coincidences makes far more SENSE to me.

Because a supposedly 'divine God' who would actual plan out and take part in these things dastardly wars makes NO SENSE to me

~~~~~

Important footnote:

I did not say, nor imply in this post that any credible archeological evidence actually exists to support that any such ruins have actually been found. There obviously exist claims of such ruins by religious zealots. Whether they are credible I have no clue.

But the bottom line for me is that even if such evidence did exist, it would not be the slightest bit impressive to me in terms of supporting the religious rumors concerning these potential ancient events.

Well, not only that, but according to the prophecies the 'messiah' was supposed to be handed the Throne of David by God himself and given the position of the King of the Jews (or whoever they were).

But in the New Testament it is being claimed the Jesus was the 'messiah'.

But Jesus was never pronounced King any any official capacity.

This is one reason why the Jews have never accepted that Jesus was the Christ. He couldn't have been. That prophecy states very clear that the messiah will be given the Throne of David by God.

Jesus most certainly never fulfilled any such prophecy.

The Christians claim that he will when he come BACK!

But if that's the case, then clearly they are STILL WAITING for prophecy to be fulfilled. They can't claim that it had already been fulfilled.

So the whole of Christianity is standing on extremely shaky ground.