Political Crossfire Forums

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: Quote: Also, on a side-note: Muhammad getting a revelation from an angel in a cave is no different than Moses speaking to a burning bush.

On the same side-note, Jews do not believe in G-d because Moses spoke to a burning bush.

Jews believe in G-d because of the Divine revelation at Sinai to the entire nation. That is the most important difference between Judaism and any other religion that I know of.

When a farmer in Kansas tells you that he personally witnessed a space ship land on his farm -- maybe you believe him, maybe you don't.

When you have 3 million normal people tell you that they have personally witnessed, with their own eyes, that a space ship landed in Central Park in New York City -- I would be more inclined to believe that something landed in Central Park. Especially if nobody can come up with a convincing theory explaining why 3 million normal people would allow themselves to be duped.
Oh really?

Well, that is quite convincing. Could you tell me, then: where on a map is this Mt. Sinai?

No, I cannot give you the precise geographical coordinates of Mt. Sinai.

I also cannot give you the precise or even imprecise location of Hitler's remains. Or of Julius Caesar for that matter.

I also cannot tell you precisely where the bomb landed on Hiroshima. Nor can I tell you where every German bomb landed during the Nazi bombing campaign of London.

I also cannot tell you who and where precisely started the fire that burned down Rome. Or Chicago for that matter.

And, frankly, I don't think you know the answer to any of those questions either.

Do you question that Hitler existed? Do you question that Caesar existed? Do you question that Hiroshima was nuked? Do you question that London was bombed the crap out of? Do you question that Rome was burned down and that Chicago was too?

Does the uncertainty of precise geographical location undermine your belief that any the above are true?

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: Quote: Also, on a side-note: Muhammad getting a revelation from an angel in a cave is no different than Moses speaking to a burning bush.

On the same side-note, Jews do not believe in G-d because Moses spoke to a burning bush.

Jews believe in G-d because of the Divine revelation at Sinai to the entire nation. That is the most important difference between Judaism and any other religion that I know of.

When a farmer in Kansas tells you that he personally witnessed a space ship land on his farm -- maybe you believe him, maybe you don't.

When you have 3 million normal people tell you that they have personally witnessed, with their own eyes, that a space ship landed in Central Park in New York City -- I would be more inclined to believe that something landed in Central Park. Especially if nobody can come up with a convincing theory explaining why 3 million normal people would allow themselves to be duped.
Oh really?

Well, that is quite convincing. Could you tell me, then: where on a map is this Mt. Sinai?

No, I cannot give you the precise geographical coordinates of Mt. Sinai.

I also cannot give you the precise or even imprecise location of Hitler's remains. Or of Julius Caesar for that matter.

I also cannot tell you precisely where the bomb landed on Hiroshima. Nor can I tell you where every German bomb landed during the Nazi bombing campaign of London.

I also cannot tell you who and where precisely started the fire that burned down Rome. Or Chicago for that matter.

And, frankly, I don't think you know the answer to any of those questions either.

Do you question that Hitler existed? Do you question that Caesar existed? Do you question that Hiroshima was nuked? Do you question that London was bombed the crap out of? Do you question that Rome was burned down and that Chicago was too?

Does the uncertainty of precise geographical location undermine your belief that any the above are true?
Damn, the edit, including all of my smart-ass remarks didn't make it in time. :x

For a reply to your referencing of Hitler, Caesar, etc, etc, existed, read the edits added to my previous post.

But I will say this: I question that King Arthur, Jesus, Krishna, and Gilgamesh ever existed. And I question that Noah ever existed.

Uncertainty about the locations of Bethlehem and Nazareth bring Jesus' existence into question and uncertainty about the locations of Avalon and Camelot bring King Arthur's existence into to question.

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: For a reply to your referencing of Hitler, Caesar, etc, etc, existed, read the edits added to my previous post.

Those edits do not address this issue. Please be so kind as to address my specific examples, not Atlantis or Mu. :)

Quote: Uncertainty about the locations of Bethlehem and Nazareth bring Jesus' existence into question and uncertainty about the locations of Avalon and Camelot bring King Arthur's existence into to question.

I understand that minor geographical uncertainty "brings into question" just about anything. Certainly, the uncertainty about where Julius Caesar's remains are, brings his existence into question to some degree. Right? Right.

Very good, we agreed on that. Now, I repeat my question -- do you believe that Julius Caesar existed, despite some uncertainty?

The answer, I predict, is yes.

Now, I admit there is some uncertainty about where Mt. Sinai is. We know the general location, we don't know the specific coordinates. Does that raise some questions? Yes. But just the way you believe, despite some uncertainty, that Caesar lived, so do I believe, despite some uncertainty, that there was an encounted with Divine at Sinai.

It is a perfectly reasonable belief, whether you personally subscribe to it or not.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Uncertainty about the locations of Bethlehem and Nazareth

Eh?

[Nathyn]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Uncertainty about the locations of Bethlehem and Nazareth

Eh?
I remember hearing a long while ago that there's some dispute that the modern city of Bethlehem is not the same as the Biblical city (can't find a source for it, though). But as for Nazareth -- they have absolutely no idea where it is. There is a town today called "Nazareth," but archaeologists and historians are extremely skeptical that any town of Nazareth existed in Jesus' day.

See Wikipedia's article: Nazareth

[Duchifas]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Uncertainty about the locations of Bethlehem and Nazareth

Eh?

cap'n, you just have to get used to the idea that EVERYTHING in this world is uncertain.

Well, except the theory of evolution and carbon dating. Those ARE certain and beyond question. :-D

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Nathyn wrote: For a reply to your referencing of Hitler, Caesar, etc, etc, existed, read the edits added to my previous post.

Those edits do not address this issue. Please be so kind as to address my specific examples, not Atlantis or Mu. :)

Quote: Uncertainty about the locations of Bethlehem and Nazareth bring Jesus' existence into question and uncertainty about the locations of Avalon and Camelot bring King Arthur's existence into to question.

I understand that minor geographical uncertainty "brings into question" just about anything. Certainly, the uncertainty about where Julius Caesar's remains are, brings his existence into question to some degree. Right? Right.

Very good, we agreed on that. Now, I repeat my question -- do you believe that Julius Caesar existed, despite some uncertainty?

The answer, I predict, is yes.

Now, I admit there is some uncertainty about where Mt. Sinai is. We know the general location, we don't know the specific coordinates. Does that raise some questions? Yes. But just the way you believe, despite some uncertainty, that Caesar lived, so do I believe, despite some uncertainty, that there was an encounted with Divine at Sinai.

It is a perfectly reasonable belief, whether you personally subscribe to it or not.
We don't just need Julius Caesar's remains, but we just need to know where he was when he was alive -- we know where he was: in the city of Rome, which can be shown on a map today.

And also, we aren't talking about a person, but a particular event. If there was this extraordinary event involving millions of Jews, well, where was it? If you can't plot the location, it brings the entire story into question. You compared it to UFOs landing in Central Park. Well, it would be like saying, "UFOs landed in Central Park," without being able to point on a map where Central Park was.

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Uncertainty about the locations of Bethlehem and Nazareth

Eh?
I remember hearing a long while ago that there's some dispute that the modern city of Bethlehem is not the same as the Biblical city (can't find a source for it, though). But as for Nazareth -- they have absolutely no idea where it is. There is a town today called "Nazareth," but archaeologists and historians are extremely skeptical that any town of Nazareth existed in Jesus' day.

See Wikipedia's article: Nazareth

From your source:

Quote: However, some historians argue that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.

I find this pretty hillarious. On one hand you question the very authenticity of the Old Testament, and essentially maintain that it is a pile of mythological garbage. On the other hand, your argument that Nazareth did not exist is.....it is not mentioned in the Old Testament.

Ok, so if it were, you would believe it? Nathyn, you can't, in good faith, diss the authenticity of a source for a week and then use that very same source to support your position on another matter. :rotf:

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: We don't just need Julius Caesar's remains, but we just need to know where he was when he was alive -- we know where he was: in the city of Rome, which can be shown on a map today.

Excuse me, says who?

Quote: And also, we aren't talking about a person, but a particular event. If there was this extraordinary event involving millions of Jews, well, where was it? If you can't plot the location, it brings the entire story into question. You compared it to UFOs landing in Central Park. Well, it would be like saying, "UFOs landed in Central Park," without being able to point on a map where Central Park was.

Your argument would be good if the location of the event were the focal point of the event. Thus, if G-d thundered down to Jews that this Sinai is located in such and such, and make sure to mark the place, and eleventh commandment is that don't you dare forget where Sinai is -- and then I can't tell you where Sinai is -- fine, you have a point. The fact is that the focal point of the revelation was the moral commandments that had nothing to do with the precise location where Jews were at that point.

Like in my other example, which you failed to address -- you can't point me to the exact place where the fire that burned down Rome started. And you know what? That's not important, because the focal point of the event was that Rome burned down, not where the fire started.

It's a rather simple issue, I don't understand your obsession with it. Frankly, I thought you could come up with much better arguments than "you don't know where Sinai is." This one is for 10 year olds. :)

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Nathyn wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Uncertainty about the locations of Bethlehem and Nazareth

Eh?
I remember hearing a long while ago that there's some dispute that the modern city of Bethlehem is not the same as the Biblical city (can't find a source for it, though). But as for Nazareth -- they have absolutely no idea where it is. There is a town today called "Nazareth," but archaeologists and historians are extremely skeptical that any town of Nazareth existed in Jesus' day.

See Wikipedia's article: Nazareth

From your source:

Quote: However, some historians argue that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.

I find this pretty hillarious. On one hand you question the very authenticity of the Old Testament, and essentially maintain that it is a pile of mythological garbage. On the other hand, your argument that Nazareth did not exist is.....it is not mentioned in the Old Testament.

Ok, so if it were, you would believe it? Nathyn, you can't, in good faith, diss the authenticity of a source for a week and then use that very same source to support your position on another matter. :rotf:
The Bible contains some historical fact. They have little incentive to lie about geography. I just don't think that it has a strong enough authority so that we should believe the claims in there which violate everything else we know of science. We shouldn't disregard all other knowledge just because of one source which makes bold claims.

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Nathyn wrote: We don't just need Julius Caesar's remains, but we just need to know where he was when he was alive -- we know where he was: in the city of Rome, which can be shown on a map today.

Excuse me, says who?

Quote: And also, we aren't talking about a person, but a particular event. If there was this extraordinary event involving millions of Jews, well, where was it? If you can't plot the location, it brings the entire story into question. You compared it to UFOs landing in Central Park. Well, it would be like saying, "UFOs landed in Central Park," without being able to point on a map where Central Park was.

Your argument would be good if the location of the event were the focal point of the event. Thus, if G-d thundered down to Jews that this Sinai is located in such and such, and make sure to mark the place, and eleventh commandment is that don't you dare forget where Sinai is -- and then I can't tell you where Sinai is -- fine, you have a point. The fact is that the focal point of the revelation was the moral commandments that had nothing to do with the precise location where Jews were at that point.

Like in my other example, which you failed to address -- you can't point me to the exact place where the fire that burned down Rome started. And you know what? That's not important, because the focal point of the event was that Rome burned down, not where the fire started.

It's a rather simple issue, I don't understand your obsession with it. Frankly, I thought you could come up with much better arguments than "you don't know where Sinai is." This one is for 10 year olds. :)
It doesn't matter if it's considered the focal point by the God figure involved or the people. If millions of Jews witnessed the presence of God in a certain place, somebody would've written down the location and somebody would've remembered. How could they forget if they actually witnessed the presence of God?

And if God did not want us to forget, it wouldn't make much sense to leave the place terra incognita, would it? hat evidence do you even have that millions of Jews even witnessed God at Mt. Sinai? Just the Tanakh?

Mt. Sinai's location is unknown because it never existed. It is a myth which became history. This process isn't hard to believe because it's happened plenty of times in other times and places with groups just as large as the Jews.

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: It doesn't matter if it's considered the focal point by the God figure involved or the people. If millions of Jews witnessed the presence of God in a certain place, somebody would've written down the location and somebody would've remembered. How could they forget if they actually witnessed the presence of God?

And if God did not want us to forget, it wouldn't make much sense to leave the place terra incognita, would it? hat evidence do you even have that millions of Jews even witnessed God at Mt. Sinai? Just the Tanakh?

Mt. Sinai's location is unknown because it never existed. It is a myth which became history.

First of all, you continue to ignore my question. Is it too hard for you to answer?

I can rephrase it for you -- if the fire really happened, and it was so huge and devastating as described, then someone would have bother to write down the exact location and time where it started, as well as all the specifics thereof, such as wind conditions, exact casualty figures, acreage burned, etc.

And if they didn't -- well, then it didn't happen. Right?


Ok, back to Sinai, I will humor your obsession a bit more. The focal point DOES matter. An encounted with the Divine is quite an overwhelming event. Jews had plenty to deal with on their plate -- encounter with G-d, commandments, miracles, etc. Those events were uncommon, they were focal, and they ARE written down and remembered. Because the exact location was not a priority, it was not remembered.

Nathyn, do you remember what you wore to your prom? Sure, you wore a tuxedo and a bow tie. You can probably describe with some degree of certainty if I asked you. Do you remember the girl you danced with? Yup. Do you remember who the prom queen was? Probably.

Do you remember at exactly which red lights the limo stopped at on the way to and from the prom? Do you remember how many miles it was exactly? Do you remember exactly, to the second, how long your dance was?

Probably not. But I am sure you don't doubt your own presence at the prom (just as an example).

Now, back to the fires....

Quote: This process isn't hard to believe because it's happened plenty of times in other times and places with groups just as large as the Jews.

Oh! Now this I find much more interesting, and I would LOVE for you to provide some examples.

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Nathyn wrote: It doesn't matter if it's considered the focal point by the God figure involved or the people. If millions of Jews witnessed the presence of God in a certain place, somebody would've written down the location and somebody would've remembered. How could they forget if they actually witnessed the presence of God?

And if God did not want us to forget, it wouldn't make much sense to leave the place terra incognita, would it? hat evidence do you even have that millions of Jews even witnessed God at Mt. Sinai? Just the Tanakh?

Mt. Sinai's location is unknown because it never existed. It is a myth which became history.

First of all, you continue to ignore my question. Is it too hard for you to answer?

I can rephrase it for you -- if the fire really happened, and it was so huge and devastating as described, then someone would have bother to write down the exact location and time where it started, as well as all the specifics thereof, such as wind conditions, exact casualty figures, acreage burned, etc.

And if they didn't -- well, then it didn't happen. Right?


Ok, back to Sinai, I will humor your obsession a bit more. The focal point DOES matter. An encounted with the Divine is quite an overwhelming event. Jews had plenty to deal with on their plate -- encounter with G-d, commandments, miracles, etc. Those events were uncommon, they were focal, and they ARE written down and remembered. Because the exact location was not a priority, it was not remembered.

Nathyn, do you remember what you wore to your prom? Sure, you wore a tuxedo and a bow tie. You can probably describe with some degree of certainty if I asked you. Do you remember the girl you danced with? Yup. Do you remember who the prom queen was? Probably.

Do you remember at exactly which red lights the limo stopped at on the way to and from the prom? Do you remember how many miles it was exactly? Do you remember exactly, to the second, how long your dance was?

Probably not. But I am sure you don't doubt your own presence at the prom (just as an example).
What you wear to your prom is not as significant to your prom as, say, the exact mountain where God came down and saw the Jewish people was as significant to the event. The location is very important because people will want to see the mountain again and to have their descendants be sure that it happened. Since the mountain was so perilous when God was there, they might even mark it as "dangerous," as sacred, to never go up the mountain again. But what I wore -- I'll never need that info in the future.

Duchifas wrote: Now, back to the fires....

Quote: This process isn't hard to believe because it's happened plenty of times in other times and places with groups just as large as the Jews.

Oh! Now this I find much more interesting, and I would LOVE for you to provide some examples.
I gave some: The Jews and Mt. Olympus, King Arthur's court, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and all sorts of Pagan Mythologies, from Egypt to Maya to Polynesia to Native America to Nordic countries. All of these nations developed folktales which were eventually were told as fact. Jesus himself may have never actually existed and instead originated the same way that Gilgamesh and King Arthur did.

Now, a Christian could ask: Do you REALLY believe that Christianity could've developed all around just a mere story about a man who never existed? Could so many billions of people have been fooled?

Of course!

Same with Islam and Muhammad in the cave. Nobody know what cave it was and nobody went in the cave with him. He could've been in there, getting drunk for all we know.

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: I gave some: The Jews and Mt. Olympus, King Arthur's court, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and all sorts of Pagan Mythologies, from Egypt to Maya to Polynesia to Native America to Nordic countries. All of these nations developed folktales which were eventually were told as fact. Jesus himself may have never actually existed and instead originated the same way that Gilgamesh and King Arthur did.

How many times do I need to repeat a simple idea?

The uniqueness of Sinai is that it was witnessed by an entire nation, of a few million people, as confirmed by written and oral tradition.

Can you please explain to me how anything about Olympus or Arthur or Gilgamesh was witnessed by a few million people and preserved by written and oral tradition?

Thanks.

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Nathyn wrote: I gave some: The Jews and Mt. Olympus, King Arthur's court, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and all sorts of Pagan Mythologies, from Egypt to Maya to Polynesia to Native America to Nordic countries. All of these nations developed folktales which were eventually were told as fact. Jesus himself may have never actually existed and instead originated the same way that Gilgamesh and King Arthur did.

How many times do I need to repeat a simple idea?

The uniqueness of Sinai is that it was witnessed by an entire nation, of a few million people, as confirmed by written and oral tradition.

Can you please explain to me how anything about Olympus or Arthur or Gilgamesh was witnessed by a few million people and preserved by written and oral tradition?

Thanks.
King Arthur's armies were composed of several thousand. Atlantis was an entire friggin' island sinking into the sea. Gilgamesh was the King of Sumer, around 2650 BC, so obviously, Sumerians must've known who their king was, telling them what to do (except Gilgamesh never actually existed). And Krishna had sex with thousands of women, the best sex humanly possible. And there's the case of Jesus, who probably didn't exist.

Really, though, I think Gilgamesh is probably the best example.

Also, explain to me how Biblical history was "preserved by written and oral tradition." That's a belief which is based upon your conception of this argument. IMO, it's purely an assumption.

Both the written and oral law are highly questionable. Our interpretation of both has drastically changed over the years, as a result of new scientific info.

[cap'n queasy]

Concerning Mount Sinai's location. Exciting new discoveries seem to have located it.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Anati_Mount_Sinai.htm

[Nathyn]

cap'n queasy wrote: Concerning Mount Sinai's location. Exciting new discoveries seem to have located it.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Anati_Mount_Sinai.htm
And "exciting new discoveries," have located Atlantis. And also, it's been scientifically discovered that DNA is controlled by our conscious thoughts.

Of course, both these discoveries involve gross exaggerations, distortion or outright rejection of the scientific method, and a dismissal of relevant criticism -- but hey, that's the price you pay for fame and fortune.

I think I'll wait for the Oxford's Journal of Semitic Studies to agree with that claim rather than simply trusting bibleinterp.com. There are a plethora of websites on the internet put out by Ph. D's and non-Ph D's, making miraculously fraudulent claims, citing support from institutions they have little to no affiliation with.

[Duchifas]

First things first, Nathyn.

Roman fire. Myth or fact?

Why?



It is common courtery in a discussion to answer a question. Thanks.

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: First things first, Nathyn.

Roman fire. Myth or fact?

Why?
You mean Greek fire and we don't know. Still, it's fairly likely, because the technology would've been available and unlike talking bushes and magical staves, it doesn't violate the laws of known physics.

I mean, if you're to argue that they had flame-throwers, like this Greek manuscript:



Then, no. But they probably had some kind of primitive incendiaries.

You ever heard the statement, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Greek fire is intriguing, but not as extraordinary as God coming down to a particular mountain and defining morality for mankind.

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: First things first, Nathyn.

Roman fire. Myth or fact?

Why?
You mean Greek fire and we don't know.

No, I mean Roman. The fire that burned down Rome in year 64. You HAVE heard of it, haven't you?

What makes you believe it happened, as opposed to.....Gilgamesh.

Why don't you think it is just a Roman myth?