₦airaland Forum

Hismasterpiece:
lol. could you please share this evidence with me?

6 million jews killed in WW2.
Islamic terrorists killing in the name of the Abrahamic god.
Christian pastors and priests taking advantage of their congregations.

To all of this the heavens are completely silent. No god booming out to deliver any sort of proclamation condemning any of these actions which is the least a god as powerful and righteous as the Abrahamic god is said to be should do but absolutely nothing happened/happens.

LordReed:
6 million jews killed in WW2.
Islamic terrorists killing in the name of the Abrahamic god.
Christian pastors and priests taking advantage of their congregations.

To all of this the heavens are completely silent. No god booming out to deliver any sort of proclamation condemning any of these actions which is the least a god as powerful and righteous as the Abrahamic god is said to be should do but absolutely nothing happened/happens.

If you read enough ethnography, history, and philosophy, you won’t need the above examples to rubbish their nonsense god because you would have enough information for some adbductive , if not inductive, reasoning. Their god is nothing more than the central character of a “noble fiction”. At least the Jewish god is. Once you realize that, Christianity becomes a tragicomedy.

KnownUnknown:
If you read enough ethnography, history, and philosophy, you won’t need the above examples to rubbish their nonsense god because you would have enough information for some adbductive , if not inductive, reasoning. Their god is nothing more than the central character of a “noble fiction”. At least the Jewish god is. Once you realize that, Christianity becomes a tragicomedy.

Indeed. I simply pointed the most accessible of these, the volume of these facts would be overwhelming for any single post to attempt to layout.

LordReed:
Indeed. I simply pointed the most accessible of these, the volume of these facts would be overwhelming for any single post to attempt to layout.

No, I don’t expect anyone to lay it out….for free.
The statement religion is regarded by the ruler as useful, the wise as false, and the common people as true becomes really profound when you realize the sheer genius of the originators.

I laugh when some criticize the authors of “sacred” books as “ancient goat herders” . There were not goat herders, they were the most educated people around and were very smart.

KnownUnknown:
No, I don’t expect anyone to lay it out….for free.
The statement religion is regarded by the ruler as useful, the wise as false, and the common people as true becomes really profound when you realize the sheer genius of the originators.

I laugh when some criticize the authors of “sacred” books as “ancient goat herders” . There were not goat herders, they were the most educated people around and were very smart.

I don't use that term because in those days it took scribes to be able write anything down plus writing implements were not as ubiquitous as we have them now. Goat herders won't have the time or inclination. It is obviously a glimpse into the birth of our sophistication, unfortunately the religious have turned something beautiful into something ugly.

LordReed:
I don't use that term because in those days it took scribes to be able write anything down plus writing implements were not as ubiquitous as we have them now. Goat herders won't have the time or inclination. It is obviously a glimpse into the birth of our sophistication, unfortunately the religious have turned something beautiful into something ugly.

I don’t think the ideas are fundamentally beautiful nor do I blame the religious for turning something beautiful into something ugly. The ideas are as good as the acts they inspire. Like the wisdom of all ages assert, men will behave badly if inculcated with stories about gods behaving badly. We see this truth in the Abrahamic religions. e.g. if the Muslims aren’t told stories of their god sanctioning all manner of bloodshed or directly causing the bloodshed, they would be less inclined to cause bloodshed.

HellVictorinho:
You don't know why you are saying that you know that nobody can determine the true nature of reality because you cannot determine whether you are correct or not when you say you know that nobody can determine the true nature of reality but I can determine that you are wrong when you say have correctly determined that nobody can determine the true nature of reality since I am aware that the true nature of reality or the true property of reality is to have no limit when reality remains WHAT IS HAPPENING INSTEAD OF NOTHING.


There's no limit to what is happening


The property of something to possess limits is happening or is being displayed by the things that have limits and these limits coincide with a specific form


The universe can only exist as just another thing that shows what is happening

Did you see "nobody" in anything I wrote??
Here's what I wrote again verbatim:
I don't know what I don't know that I didn't know
Debate that.

Hismasterpiece:
Jesus did exist. He indeed was crucified on a cross.

Historian Flavius Josephus, wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus.

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities , his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around 37 A.D., Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus,” Mykytiuk says.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage but did not insert it wholesale into the text.

Another account of Jesus appears in [ Annals of Imperial Rome ], a first-century history of the written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the [burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that [Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

“When Tacitus wrote history, if he considered the information not entirely reliable, he normally wrote some indication of that for his readers,” Mykytiuk says in vouching for the historical value of the passage. “There is no such indication of potential error in the passage that mentions Christus.”
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

Based on the independent mention of Jesus’ trial and execution, I believe Jesus existed. This, in no way, proves the Biblical account of Jesus being the son of God via “immaculate conception” or performing miracles. It merely suggest he existed and was a preacher who was convicted of blasphemy and crucified. A common practice in those days and still today. Although today they just behead you with a machete.

Hismasterpiece:
This is a historical fact.

Since we started this discussion, you’ve never established what you think a fact is, how you determine factuality. History is always a probability. Show me how you calculated this, based on what. On second thought, don’t bother me. Look up your facts, then look up the scholarly consensus on each one. Not some general statement from a bishop, the actual data behind the conclusion.

EDIT: After further digging, I've stumbled accross some online resources that state that Josephus’ account was doctored to support the idea that Jesus was historical when he was not. See here, here and here. There are more sources, but some are not even in English. If you really need more to show that this was a false account and added later by Christians I can show you that too, but all one needs to do is pick up a college textbook to find that the Testimonium Flavianum is a falsified by Christians. Other languages do not have this quotation as it appears to English speakers.

So basically, the best historical record of Jesus was written 60 years after the Bible says he died, is controversial, and doesn’t comment on his divinity.

KnownUnknown:
I don’t think the ideas are fundamentally beautiful nor do I blame the religious for turning something beautiful into something ugly. The ideas are as good as the acts they inspire. Like the wisdom of all ages assert, men will behave badly if inculcated with stories about gods behaving badly. We see this truth in the Abrahamic religions. e.g. if the Muslims aren’t told stories of their god sanctioning all manner of bloodshed or directly causing the bloodshed, they would be less inclined to cause bloodshed.

That's just it, they are not supposed to inspire you to commit atrocious acts just like Shakespeare's writings are not a basis for morality. It's a glimpse into the formation of culture, its supposed to provide context and understanding of those times. It should allow you to see how far human society has developed culturally. If you've ever read the Greek or Roman mythologies you'll see similar there to but it shouldn't inspire you to go kill or rape.

LordReed:
That's just it, they are not supposed to inspire you to commit atrocious acts just like Shakespeare's writings are not a basis for morality. It's a glimpse into the formation of culture, its supposed to provide context and understanding of those times. It should allow you to see how far human society has developed culturally. If you've ever read the Greek or Roman mythologies you'll see similar there to but it shouldn't inspire you to go kill or rape.

The fictions are supposed to inspire the people to protect their state and their people. It’s meant to foster brotherhood amongst a particular group and if that means killing other groups that’s what they do. Moses’ noble fiction, the most famous one, includes alots of booodshed of other groups by the “chosen people” under the direction of Yah. The noble lie is about advancing certain nation building agendas and if it means killing people, they kill people. Another thing about noble fiction:
The hearers might not believe it, their sons can be made to believe it, but people of posterity will swear it’s the truth. e.g. the whole exodus in the Bible is believe by people but the actual story is less known because it doesn’t include magic and doesn’t let them tell the story of being “chosen by god”

Manifest Destiny is a more recent example:
Coining the Phrase

In 1845, a democratic leader and influential editor by the name of John L. O'Sullivan gave the movement its name. In an attempt to explain America's thirst for expansion, and to present a defense for America's claim to new territories he wrote:
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (Brinkley 352)
Manifest Destiny became the rallying cry throughout America. The notion of Manifest Destiny was publicized in the papers and was advertise and argued by politicians throughout the nation. The idea of Manifest Destiny Doctrine became the torch, that lit the way for American expansion.

A Movement As Old As America Itself

Although the movement was named in 1845, the philosophy behind Manifest Destiny always existed throughout American History. For example, in 1818 Andrew Jackson, while taking a broad interpretation of vague instructions from President Monroe, led military forces into the Floridas during the Florida crisis. In a systematic and ruthless way, he punished the Seminal Indians for taking up arms with the Spanish, destroyed Spanish forces, and captured several cities and forts. (Demkin, Chapter . Americans who had moral reservations about the rough tactics of Jackson, soothed their consciences with a familiar, but not yet named philosophy. Their reasoning, the Floridas were part of American territory; therefore, destiny intended that America should have them.

KnownUnknown:
The fictions are supposed to inspire the people to protect their state and their people. It’s meant to foster brotherhood amongst a particular group and if that means killing other groups that’s what they do. Moses’ noble fiction, the most famous one, includes a lots of booodshed of other groups by the “chosen people” under the direction of Yah. The noble lie is about advancing certain nation building agendas and if it means killing people, they kill people.

Manifest Destiny is a more recent example:
Coining the Phrase

In 1845, a democratic leader and influential editor by the name of John L. O'Sullivan gave the movement its name. In an attempt to explain America's thirst for expansion, and to present a defense for America's claim to new territories he wrote:
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (Brinkley 352)
Manifest Destiny became the rallying cry throughout America. The notion of Manifest Destiny was publicized in the papers and was advertise and argued by politicians throughout the nation. The idea of Manifest Destiny Doctrine became the torch, that lit the way for American expansion.

A Movement As Old As America Itself

Although the movement was named in 1845, the philosophy behind Manifest Destiny always existed throughout American History. For example, in 1818 Andrew Jackson, while taking a broad interpretation of vague instructions from President Monroe, led military forces into the Floridas during the Florida crisis. In a systematic and ruthless way, he punished the Seminal Indians for taking up arms with the Spanish, destroyed Spanish forces, and captured several cities and forts. (Demkin, Chapter . Americans who had moral reservations about the rough tactics of Jackson, soothed their consciences with a familiar, but not yet named philosophy. Their reasoning, the Floridas were part of American territory; therefore, destiny intended that America should have them.

The books of the OT of the Bible where written as cultural records of their heritage, it wasn't meant to inspire them to commit genocide. The same way Hamlet doesn't mean ghosts exist or that you should kill your uncle. They were literary compositions meant to mark the development of their culture. Imagine someone turning Shakespeare's books into a religious idealogical manifesto.

LordReed:
The books of the OT of the Bible where written as cultural records of their heritage, it wasn't meant to inspire them to commit genocide. The same way Hamlet doesn't mean ghosts exist or that you should kill your uncle. They were literary compositions meant to mark the development of their culture. Imagine someone turning Shakespeare's books into a religious idealogical manifesto.

The books of the OT Bible are their cultural heritage but the first five books form basis of the noble fiction. They did commit those genocides in the Pentateuch. The fiction is that their god chose them and sanctioned the bloodshed.

The real story is Moses was a priest who was at the head of people expelled from Egypt because of infectious disease and other things. The god Amun was consulted and the Oracle said that the authorities should expel the group. Since Moses was a priest, he and any other priests in the party would have been the most educated amongst the people. Educated meaning he knew how the whole thing is created, he new proto science, and other tricks of controlling society because that was the job of the priests. The priests also knew the truth in this set up and to keep the lie going, they were well compensated. That’s why the priests were given more than the common people after the acquired land from all those genocides. It’s an ancient Egyptian trick with the cult/priests of Osiris being the original.

What is the animal symbol of Amun?
A ram

What smell was sweet to “the lord” after Moses sacrificed it?
A ram

It was a symbolic sacrifice of the god that kicked them out of their former homes. He simple sacrificed the old god for the new. AND HE DIDN’T BELIEVE IN GOD.

When Somnvayina repeats the words of his Jewish landlord, little does he know that god really means “the heavens” or even the so called totality of existence,like he is fond of saying. And god did not give any laws.

Lycurgus the law giver of Lacedaemon said Apollo gave him the laws.

Minos the law giver of Crete said Zeus gave him the laws

Moyses the law giver of Israel said Yah gave him the laws

Etc

Leviticus 10
New International Version
The Death of Nadab and Abihu
10 Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu(A) took their censers,(B) put fire in them(C) and added incense;(D) and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord,(E) contrary to his command.(F) 2 So fire came out(G) from the presence of the Lord and consumed them,(H) and they died before the Lord.(I) 3 Moses then said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord spoke of when he said:

“‘Among those who approach me(J)
I will be proved holy;(K)
in the sight of all the people
I will be honored.(L)’”
Aaron remained silent.

4 Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan,(M) sons of Aaron’s uncle Uzziel,(N) and said to them, “Come here; carry your cousins outside the camp,(O) away from the front of the sanctuary.(P)” 5 So they came and carried them, still in their tunics,(Q) outside the camp, as Moses ordered.

6 Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar,(R) “Do not let your hair become unkempt[a](S) and do not tear your clothes,(T) or you will die and the Lord will be angry with the whole community.(U) But your relatives, all the Israelites, may mourn(V) for those the Lord has destroyed by fire. 7 Do not leave the entrance to the tent of meeting(W) or you will die, because the Lord’s anointing oil(X) is on you.” So they did as Moses said.

8 Then the Lord said to Aaron, 9 “You and your sons are not to drink wine(Y) or other fermented drink(Z) whenever you go into the tent of meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance(AA) for the generations to come, 10 so that you can distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean,(AB) 11 and so you can teach(AC) the Israelites all the decrees the Lord has given them through Moses.(AD)”

12 Moses said to Aaron and his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, “Take the grain offering(AE) left over from the food offerings prepared without yeast and presented to the Lord and eat it beside the altar,(AF) for it is most holy. 13 Eat it in the sanctuary area,(AG) because it is your share and your sons’ share of the food offerings presented to the Lord; for so I have been commanded.(AH) 14 But you and your sons and your daughters may eat the breast(AI) that was waved and the thigh that was presented. Eat them in a ceremonially clean place;(AJ) they have been given to you and your children as your share of the Israelites’ fellowship offerings. 15 The thigh(AK) that was presented and the breast that was waved must be brought with the fat portions of the food offerings, to be waved before the Lord as a wave offering.(AL) This will be the perpetual share for you and your children, as the Lord has commanded.”

16 When Moses inquired about the goat of the sin offering[b](AM) and found that it had been burned up, he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s remaining sons, and asked, 17 “Why didn’t you eat the sin offering(AN) in the sanctuary area? It is most holy; it was given to you to take away the guilt(AO) of the community by making atonement for them before the Lord. 18 Since its blood was not taken into the Holy Place,(AP) you should have eaten the goat in the sanctuary area, as I commanded.(AQ)”

19 Aaron replied to Moses, “Today they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering(AR) before the Lord, but such things as this have happened to me. Would the Lord have been pleased if I had eaten the sin offering today?” 20 When Moses heard this, he was satisfied.

If you don’t presuppose that “the lord” was really in a tent in the desert chilling with the Israelites. The real “lord” is apparent in the story below.

KnownUnknown:
The books of the OT Bible are their cultural heritage but the first five books form basis of the noble fiction. They did commit those genocides in the Pentateuch. The fiction is that their god chose them and sanctioned the bloodshed.

The real story is Moses was a priest who was at the head of people expelled from Egypt because of infectious disease and other things. The god Amun was consulted and the Oracle said that the authorities should expel the group. Since Moses was a priest, he and any other priests in the party would have been the most educated amongst the people. Educated meaning he knew how the whole thing is created, he new proto science, and other tricks of controlling society because that was the job of the priests. The priests also knew the truth in this set up and to keep the lie going, they were well compensated. That’s why the priests were given more than the common people after the acquired land from all those genocides. It’s an ancient Egyptian trick with the cult/priests of Osiris being the original.

What is the animal symbol of Amun?
A ram

What smell was sweet to “the lord” after Moses sacrificed it?
A ram

It was a symbolic sacrifice of the god that kicked them out of their former homes. He simple sacrificed the old god for the new. AND HE DIDN’T BELIEVE IN GOD.

When Somnvayina repeats the words of his Jewish landlord, little does he know that god really means “the heavens” or even the so called totality of existence,like he is fond of saying. And god did not give any laws.

Lycurgus the law giver of Lacedaemon said Apollo gave him the laws.

Minos the law giver of Crete said Zeus gave him the laws

Moyses the law giver of Israel said Yah gave him the laws

Etc

But the thing is most of those things didn't happen, not even the slaughters. They were exaggerations of their conquests. Even at the height of their might during the reign of the House of David they didn't exterminate many of the indigenous people, instead they consolidated. It was after their return from exile that they began to really turn the whole thing into a religion.

LordReed:
But the thing is most of those things didn't happen, not even the slaughters. They were exaggerations of their conquests. Even at the height of their might during the reign of the House of David they didn't exterminate many of the indigenous people, instead they consolidated. It was after their return from exile that they began to really turn the whole thing into a religion.

According to ethnographers, it did happen. The ethnographers got their information from the Egyptian priests. The ones who would have known what Moses was doing. It was already a religion before the exile. Moses setting up the priesthood in the Pentateuch is when the religion started by teaching them how to honor “god”. David came much later after they had already exterminated enough people to secure the “promised land” and by that time they were in the ascendancy so no need to kill to many people.

KnownUnknown:
According to ethnographers. It did happen. It was already a religion before the exile. Moses setting up the priesthood in the Pentateuch is when the religion started.

Nope there is no evidence a Moses existed. There is no evidence of an Exodus from Egypt. There is no evidence they went around slaughtering the Canaanites. In fact the evidence shows that the Hebrews were themselves Canaanites that started to distinguish themselves by elevating particular gods above others.

LordReed:
Nope there is no evidence a Moses existed. There is no evidence of an Exodus from Egypt. There is no evidence they went around slaughtering the Canaanites. In fact the evidence shows that the Hebrews were themselves Canaanites that started to distinguish themselves by elevating particular gods above others.

What have you read to make you think the above or are your repeating the popular narrative?

Besides there is no evidence for the exodus because it’s a fictional tale of a real event. The exodus is the fictionalized version of a real forced migration. Real events mixed with exaggeration. Like Hollywood

FreeIgboho:
Did you see "nobody" in anything I wrote??
Here's what I wrote again verbatim:
I don't know what I don't know that I didn't know
Debate that.

When you say it is impossible to determine the true nature of reality
It means nobody can determine the true nature of reality




You have said many things

Not just one thing


I have addressed the main thing


Which is the issue of what I know



I don't care about what you know or don't know

KnownUnknown:
What have you read to make you think the above or are your repeating the popular narrative?

Besides there is no evidence for the exodus because it’s a fictional tale of a real event. The exodus is the fictionalized version of a real forced migration. Real events mixed with exaggeration. Like Hollywood

Read here. Basically the consensus of historians is none of those events happened.

LordReed:
Read here. Basically the consensus of historians is none of those events happened.

I don’t see how this refutes anything I have written. It seems these authors are arguing against the accuracy of the exodus story. Like I said, it’s a fictional tale of a real event.

That there is no clear evidence for Moses doesn’t mean he didn’t exist. You mentioned the House of David but there is as much evidence for David as there is for Moses. That doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. There is no clear evidence for Jesus either but it’s not farfetched to believe there was some guy named Yeshua who might have been a rabbi with a following in Galilee.

KnownUnknown:
I don’t see how this refutes anything I have written. It seems these authors are arguing against the accuracy of the exodus story. Like I said, it’s a fictional tale of a real event.

That there is no clear evidence for Moses doesn’t mean he didn’t exist. You mentioned the House of David but there is as much evidence for David as there is for Moses. That doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. There is no clear evidence for Jesus either but it’s not farfetched to believe there was some guy named Yeshua who might have been a rabbi with a following in Galilee.

There is no extra biblical evidence for Moses, none, zilch, nada, same for any type of migration from Egypt. The House of David has extra biblical evidence in the form of artefacts that were unearthed that contain the sigils and writings from that period.

LordReed:
There is no extra biblical evidence for Moses, none, zilch, nada, same for any type of migration from Egypt. The House of David has extra biblical evidence in the form of artefacts that were unearthed that contain the sigils and writings from that period.

Non Jewish ethnographers qualify as sources for Moses but it’s not definite. That’s why I said earlier that it’s all abductive reasoning. We can’t find enough definite information either way. Pray tell, where are these artifacts of David?

Another perspective on David
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-meet-the-real-king-david-the-one-the-bible-didn-t-want-you-to-know-about-1.7062754

There’s a pay wall on the article. Here’s an excerpt

If you’ve never heard of King Jeroboam II, you’re probably not alone. He’s barely mentioned in the Bible despite ruling over a big chunk of the Levant 2,800 years ago, for no less than four decades. But you’ve definitely heard of the great kings Saul, David and Solomon, even though the actual existence of their United Monarchy of Israel and Judah has long been doubted by many scholars.

Now mounting evidence from archaeological digs and biblical scholarship has led to a startling new theory, which conflates the great Hebrew kings of yore with the oft-overlooked Jeroboam II. A great United Monarchy of sorts did exist, the new theory posits. But it formed under none other than the Israelite king Jeroboam II some two centuries after the time of David and Solomon, spreading as far as today’s Syria and Jordan.

In striking contrast to the biblical narrative, it was the kingdom of Israel in the north that controlled Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah in the south.

And why would the Bible say otherwise? Because the holy text was first compiled in Jerusalem more than a century after Jeroboam II’s reign, under the Judahite king Josiah, who was seeking justification for some expansionism of his own.

And, it was the real-life reign of Jeroboam II that offered Josiah the inspiration for the biblical story of the magnificent kingdom of David and Solomon, according to the new theory proposed by Tel Aviv University professor Israel Finkelstein, one of Israel’s top biblical archaeologists.

Finkelstein, 69, has spent much of his career trying to convince his colleagues to stop contorting the interpretation of archaeological finds to fit the biblical narrative. The Bible is not a guidebook, he argues. Archaeologists exploring ruins for the story of the ancient Hebrews should be guided by the data emerging from excavations and advanced scientific techniques.

As he tells Haaretz in an exclusive interview, Finkelstein indeed thinks there was a historical great kingdom in ancient Israel. But it wasn’t your rabbi’s United Monarchy, ruled by David and Solomon from Jerusalem, with a centralized cult at the Temple. That story was instead based on the sprawling Israelite polity that emerged much later.

As the Bible tells it, sometime in the 11th or 10th century B.C.E., the twelve Israelite tribes united under strong monarchs: Saul, David and Solomon. But the fourth royal generation, Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, was unable to hold the people together. All the tribes except Judah revolted against him, forming their own kingdom of Israel north of Jerusalem, led by a king named Jeroboam (the first of his name – not to be confused with our hero Jeroboam II).

Some archaeologists have long questioned the historicity of this account. Thanks in large part to Finkelstein’s own research, monumental ruins found across modern Israel – from Megiddo to Hazor and Gezer – once hailed as evidence of Solomon’s building prowess, have been re-dated to about a century after the fabled king was supposed to have reigned. These great ruins are now thought to be what remains of that northern kingdom of Israel that the Bible describes as a rascally renegade, but which was in reality a powerful regional force.

There is a tension between the biblical description, which makes Judah and Jerusalem the center of the Universe, and archaeology and ancient near eastern texts, which make it very clear that Israel was the big story,” Finkelstein says. “It was more prosperous and more prominent, it had a larger population and competed for hegemony over the entire Levant.”

Archaeologists from opposing camps still fiercely debate the size and power of Jerusalem in the 10th century B.C.E. but so far there is little hard evidence that the founders of the Davidic dynasty ruled over anything larger than a tiny city-state in the Judean highlands.

Finkelstein and other scholars posit that the stories of the United Monarchy originated in the late 7th century B.C.E., under the Judahite king Josiah. But why would Josiah have his scribes aggrandize the “history” of his ancestors?

KnownUnknown:
Non Jewish ethnographers qualify as sources for Moses but it’s not definite. That’s why I said earlier that it’s all abductive reasoning. We can’t find enough definite information either way. Pray tell, where are these artifacts of David?

Another perspective on David
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-meet-the-real-king-david-the-one-the-bible-didn-t-want-you-to-know-about-1.7062754

Which non-Jewish ethnographic works are you referencing?

B

HellVictorinho:
When you say it is impossible to determine the true nature of reality
It means nobody can determine the true nature of reality




You have said many things

Not just one thing


I have addressed the main thing


Which is the issue of what I know



I don't care about what you know or don't know

Bros, I have said many times that I have no way of being sure u actually exist outside my head. How then can I be talking about what YOU know or don't know??!!

[

FreeIgboho:
Bros, I have said many times that I have no way of being sure u actually exist outside my head. How then can I be talking about what YOU know or don't know??!!

Whether you are sure or not, I know I exist because I exist


If I don't exist,it means I won't know.

KnownUnknown:
Hecateus of Abdera etc

Nothing shows any God exists so what's the use of all this


I wonder why LordReed keeps saying maybe there's a this or that concerning Gods just as you are saying maybe there's a this or that concerning Jesus



Well, I don't have to go round the universe to know what's impossible


I know because of the definitions of the terms we use when speaking of anything that we speak of


It's all about the definitions



Off course


Yeshua,Hosea, Michael,etc are names that anyone can possess


But it's impossible for certain things to exist

LordReed:
6 million jews killed in WW2.
Islamic terrorists killing in the name of the Abrahamic god.
Christian pastors and priests taking advantage of their congregations.

To all of this the heavens are completely silent. No god booming out to deliver any sort of proclamation condemning any of these actions which is the least a god as powerful and righteous as the Abrahamic god is said to be should do but absolutely nothing happened/happens.

The Bible teaches that one day God will rid the world of evil and wipe away every tear. The Bible also teaches that God is not a sluggard with regards to that promise but is patiently waiting for the evil people to repent of their evil and turn wholeheartedly to Him. But whether they repent or not He is returning one day to judge all.

You talk about God being silent with regards to the evils being done by others while you're not taking into consideration all the evils that you yourself have done and are doing which God is also silent (but not consenting) to. If God were to behave as you expect without giving you or the others involved in evil a chance to change would that be fair?

God loves the terrorist as well as He loves their victims. And don't you dare question God's love for terrorists because in the eyes of God both the terrorist and their victims are guilty and worthy is punishment (I'm not supporting the terrorists) but I'm just saying that just because people fell victims of terror doesn't excuse all the bad things that they may have done. The so-called victims could have been involved in adultery, lying, stealing, etc. and the fact that they fell victim to terror doesn't excuse them.

As regards all these claims the Bible teaches that there is a set day for judgement. After a man dies he is judged. So this is how God works. He just watches them while they do the terrible things that they do (hoping that they would repent) but in the event that they don't, and die in that state, God will punish them in hell.

God will not let evil go unpunished. All those terrorists and false pastors will answer to God one day and it is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God.

Near1:
Historian Flavius Josephus, wrote one of the earliest non-biblical accounts of Jesus.

The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities , his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D.

Thought to have been born a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus around 37 A.D., Josephus was a well-connected aristocrat and military leader in Palestine who served as a commander in Galilee during the first Jewish Revolt against Rome between 66 and 70 A.D. Although Josephus was not a follower of Jesus, “he was around when the early church was getting started, so he knew people who had seen and heard Jesus,” Mykytiuk says.

In one passage of Jewish Antiquities that recounts an unlawful execution, Josephus identifies the victim, James, as the “brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” While few scholars doubt the short account’s authenticity, says Mykytiuk, more debate surrounds Josephus’s lengthier passage about Jesus, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” which describes a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage but did not insert it wholesale into the text.

Another account of Jesus appears in [ Annals of Imperial Rome ], a first-century history of the written around 116 A.D. by the Roman senator and historian Tacitus. In chronicling the [burning of Rome in 64 A.D., Tacitus mentions that [Emperor Nero falsely blamed “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

As a Roman historian, Tacitus did not have any Christian biases in his discussion of the persecution of Christians by Nero, says Ehrman. “Just about everything he says coincides—from a completely different point of view, by a Roman author disdainful of Christians and their superstition—with what the New Testament itself says: Jesus was executed by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, for crimes against the state, and a religious movement of his followers sprang up in his wake.”

“When Tacitus wrote history, if he considered the information not entirely reliable, he normally wrote some indication of that for his readers,” Mykytiuk says in vouching for the historical value of the passage. “There is no such indication of potential error in the passage that mentions Christus.”
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

Based on the independent mention of Jesus’ trial and execution, I believe Jesus existed. This, in no way, proves the Biblical account of Jesus being the son of God via “immaculate conception” or performing miracles. It merely suggest he existed and was a preacher who was convicted of blasphemy and crucified. A common practice in those days and still today. Although today they just behead you with a machete.


Since we started this discussion, you’ve never established what you think a fact is, how you determine factuality. History is always a probability. Show me how you calculated this, based on what. On second thought, don’t bother me. Look up your facts, then look up the scholarly consensus on each one. Not some general statement from a bishop, the actual data behind the conclusion.

EDIT: After further digging, I've stumbled accross some online resources that state that Josephus’ account was doctored to support the idea that Jesus was historical when he was not. See here, here and here. There are more sources, but some are not even in English. If you really need more to show that this was a false account and added later by Christians I can show you that too, but all one needs to do is pick up a college textbook to find that the Testimonium Flavianum is a falsified by Christians. Other languages do not have this quotation as it appears to English speakers.

So basically, the best historical record of Jesus was written 60 years after the Bible says he died, is controversial, and doesn’t comment on his divinity.

You do realize that those articles were written by non-Christians who are understandably biased? Give me an article by a honest skeptic who is open hearted and presents the truth with no biases behind them and I'll take you seriously.